Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3527

the earliest planned arrival time to the

latest planned arrival time, for the

anticipated airplane routing. This

increases the possibility on a 207-

minute ETOPS dispatch that the flight

crew when faced with the need to

initiate an in-flight diversion, could be

closer to a suitable alternate airport in

Russia, the Aleutians, or elsewhere in

Alaska than compared to an off-track

route (more Southerly route) that was

based on a 180-minute ETOPS dispatch.

All other ETOPS planning requirements

specified in AC 120–42A continue to

apply to the 207-minute ETOPS

dispatch.

The air carrier will record the

dispatch considerations when applying

this special authorization for each use,

and retain such records for review by

the FAA for at least three months.

In the April 27, 1999 Federal Register

notice, the FAA stated that it did not

endorse the ATA proposal, per se. The

April 27 notice outlined, in great detail,

the issues involved in determining

whether an appropriate level of safety

could be established for 207-minute

dispatch ETOPS. Public comments were

also in great detail, and reflected that

the commenters appreciated all of the

issues. After careful review of the

proposal and comments received, the

FAA has decided to proceed with a

policy to allow the limited 207-minute

dispatch authorization described in this

notice.

Summary

The FAA supports a collaborative

effort to produce policy and rules that

incorporate the best information

available from operators, manufacturers,

and others who may be affected. The

FAA also supports the rulemaking

process that assures that the issues are

thoroughly examined in a public forum.

The FAA does not believe, though, that

approval of a limited 207-minute North

Pacific ETOPS operation must await

further ETOPS rulemaking.

The FAA recognizes the potential

safety benefit that is provided with an

extension to 180-minute ETOPS as it

applies to operations in the North

Pacific. The equipment and dispatch

requirements that are specified in this

limited 207-minute diversion authority

are more conservative than those

required for 180-minutes. The B–777

systems design and demonstrated

service reliability indicate that the

airplane can meet these requirements,

and the FAA will evaluate Boeing’s data

and the updated Numerical Probability

Analysis to make its finding of

suitability for 207-minute ETOPS. In

order for airlines to exercise the 207-

minute ETOPS authority, additional

Minimum Equipment List (MEL)

requirements will apply, as well as

dispatch planning to consider the

availability of other enroute airports

along the proposed route that do not

meet alternate weather criteria at time of

dispatch. This is intended to limit the

frequency of a 207-minute use, and to

provide an equivalent level of safety for

those flights that are dispatched with a

207-minute diversion limit. The FAA

will closely monitor the application of

these requirements by airlines that have

received approval to use the limited

207-minute ETOPS.

Intent To Task ARAC

The FAA intends to initiate ETOPS

rulemaking through the ARAC process

by separate notice in the near future.

The ARAC ETOPS Working Group

would be tasked to provide their

recommendation to the FAA for:

• Codification of existing ETOPS

standards and requirements in the

appropriate certification and operational

regulations

• Development of objective standards

and requirements for ETOPS beyond

180-minutes, for codification in

appropriate certification and operational

regulations, and

• Review the requirements for ETOPS

and all other extended range operations

for all airplanes regardless of the

number of engines, and provide

recommendations to standardize the

requirements for such operations.

The FAA will draw from the working

group recommendations to subsequently

issue ETOPS and for long range

operations regulations through the

rulemaking process. It is desirable to

have international regulatory,

manufacturer, and operator

participation in the ARAC ETOPS

Working Group to provide harmonized

positions that may be a basis for

international ETOPS standards.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 18,

2000.

Thomas E. McSweeny,

Associate Administrator for Regulations and

Certification.

[FR Doc. 00–1505 Filed 1–18–00 3:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application

to impose and use a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at Sacramento

International Airport, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on

Application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comments on the

application to impose and use a PFC at

Sacramento International Airport under

the provisions of the Aviation Safety

and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990

(Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Airports Division,

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA

90261, or San Francisco Airports

District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room

210, Burlingame, CA 94010–1303. In

addition, one copy of any comments

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Mr. G. Hardy Acree,

Director of Airports, county of

Sacramento, at the following address:

6900 Airport Boulevard, Sacramento,

CA 95837–1109. Air carriers and foreign

air carriers may submit copies of written

comments previously provided to the

county of Sacramento under § 158.23 of

part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlys Vandervelde, Airports Program

Analyst, San Francisco Airports District

Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210,

Burlingame, CA 94010–1303,

Telephone: (650) 876–2806. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Sacramento International Airport under

the provisions of the Aviation Safety

and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990

(Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 28, 1999, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use a PFC submitted by the

county of Sacramento was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than March

31, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of

the impose and use application No. 00–

06–C–00–SMF:

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00.

3528 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

Proposed charge effective date:

August 1, 2006.

Proposed charge expiration date:

November 1, 2013.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$115,700,000.

Brief description of the proposed

project: Terminal A Construction

Including Ticketing, Baggage Claim, 12

Aircraft Gates and Associated Building

Infrastructure.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: None.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

Regional Airports Division located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd.,

Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any

person may, upon request, inspect the

application, notice and other documents

germane to the application in person at

the country of Sacramento.

Issued in Hawthorne, California, on

January 4, 2000.

Herman C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 00–1484 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement;

Glacier County, Montana

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration, (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA hereby gives

notice that it intends to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

for a corridor study to evaluate

development of a highway between

Browning, Montana and the Hudson

Divide in Glacier County, Montana.

Access to the area is currently provided

by US 89 and the study will evaluate

improvements to the existing highway

and all practicable alignment

alternatives.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale

Paulson, Program Development

Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, 2880 Skyway Drive,

Helena, MT 59602; Telephone: (406)

449–5303 ext. 239; or Joel M. Marshik,

Manager, Environmental Services and

Tribal Liaison, Montana Department of

Transportation, 2701 Prospect Avenue,

Helena, Montana 59602; Telephone:

(4060 444–7632.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Government Printing Office’s

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at

(202) 512–1661. Internet users may

reach the Office of the Federal Register’s

home page at: http://www/nara.gov./

fedreg and the Government Printing

Office’s database at: http://

www.access.gpo.gov.nara.

Background

The FHWA, in cooperation with the

Montana Department of Transportation

(MDT), will prepare an EIS to acquire

land, design, and construct a new or

improved US 89 between Browning,

Montana and the Hudson Bay Divide.

The EIS will examine the short and

long-term impacts on the natural and

physical environment. The impact

assessment will include, but not be

limited to, impacts on wetlands,

wildlife, and fisheries; social

environment; changes in land use;

aesthetics; changes in traffic; and

economic impacts. Environmental

Justice (as outlined in Executed Order

12898) will also be addressed as part of

the impact assessment. The EIS will also

examine measures to mitigate

significant adverse impacts resulting

from the proposed action.

Comments are being solicited from

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies and from private organizations

and citizens who have interest in this

proposal. Public information meetings

will be held in the project area to

discuss the potential alignments. The

draft EIS will be available for public and

agency review; and a public hearing will

be held to receive comments. Public

notice will be given of the time and

place of all meetings and hearings.

Comments and/or suggestions from all

interested parties are requested, to

ensure that the full range of all issues,

and significant environmental issues in

particular, are identified and reviewed.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and/or its EIS should

be directed to the FHWA or the MDT at

the addresses listed previously.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

proposed action)

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: January 11, 2000.

Dale Paulson,

Program Development Engineer, FHWA.

[FR Doc. 1435 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

In accordance with Part 211 of Title

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

notice is hereby given that the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) received

a request for a waiver of compliance

with certain requirements of its safety

standards. The individual petition is

described below, including the party

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions

involved, the nature of the relief being

requested, and the petitioner’s

arguments in favor of relief.

Canadian Pacific Railway

(Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–

1999–6639)

Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) is

seeking a permanent waiver of

compliance with the Railroad Freight

Car Safety Standards, 49 CFR 215.3(c)(3)

and 215.305. Section 215.3(c)(3)

excludes maintenance of way

equipment from compliance with

Section 215 when it is not used in

revenue service and is stenciled in

accordance with § 215.305 of this part.

Title 49 CFR 215.305 requires that

maintenance of way equipment be

stenciled with the letters ‘‘MW’’ in

clearly legible print at least 2 inches in

height on each side of the car. CPR

states that § 19.1 of the Canadian rules

excludes maintenance of way

equipment when stenciled with the

letters ‘‘RSE.’’

CPR and its subsidiaries, Delaware

and Hudson and Soo Line, request a

permanent waiver to allow CPR marked

service equipment to be excluded from

the requirements of Part 215.

CPR claims that this request is issued

to harmonize the enforcement

differences in these regulations, as

contemplated by the NAFTA Trade

Agreement, and they further claim that

stenciling these cars to comply with

FRA requirements would present an

undue financial burden and impede

transportation opportunities between

the respective countries.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in these proceedings by

submitting written views, data, or

comments. FRA does not anticipate

scheduling a public hearing in

connection with these proceedings since