Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Notices 37205

0.01 (i.e., 1% probability of rejecting

‘‘good’’ material) and an ‘‘n’’ value of 3

to 5 are appropriate. Note the less

stringent requirement here than for

obtaining access to the ‘‘original’’

qualification database discussed in

Section 4.4. In the latter case, all future

batches of material are being admitted

while in the former case only one batch

is under scrutiny. As the exposure and

experience along this line increase

through time, a new set of values for

these two parameters may be provided.

Also, considering the intrinsic

difference both in terms of the nature of

the material system and the specifics of

application, the certification offices

(ACO’s) may adjust this set of values

reflecting their unique circumstances.

If quality control testing fails,

engineering evaluation can be

performed to justify a retest of the same

batch of material. As part of this effort,

engineers should search for other

reasons to believe the material is ‘‘bad’’

or identify a problem in specimen

fabrication and/or testing. The number

of ‘‘retests’’ should be limited to one

which, from a purely statistical

perspective, yields a probability of

rejecting good material in two sets of

receiving inspection tests for the same

batch is only 0.01% for the

recommended ‘‘α’’.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

30, 2000.

Marvin Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14482 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-No. 3)]

Railroad Cost of Capital—1999

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

SUMMARY: On June 12, 2000 the Board

served a decision to update its

computation of the railroad industry’s

cost of capital for 1999. The composite

after-tax cost of capital rate for 1999 is

found to be 10.8%, based on a current

cost of debt of 7.2%; a cost of common

equity capital of 12.9%; a cost of

preferred equity capital of 6.3%; and a

capital structure mix comprised of

35.5% debt, 62.7% common equity, and

1.8% preferred equity. The cost of

capital finding made in this proceeding

will be used in a variety of Board

proceedings.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

June 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leonard J. Blistein, (202) 565–1529.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The cost

of capital finding in this decision shall

be used for a variety of regulatory

purposes. To obtain a copy of the full

decision, write to, call, or pick up in

person from: Da-To-Da Office

Solutions., Room 405, 1925 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20423.

Telephone: (202) 466–5530. [Assistance

for the hearing impaired is available

through TDD services (202) 565–1695.]

The decision is also available on the

Board’s internet site at www.stb.dot.gov.

Environmental and Energy

Considerations

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we

conclude that our action in this

proceeding will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The purpose

and effect of this action are to update

the annual railroad industry cost of

capital finding by the Board. No new

reporting or other regulatory

requirements are imposed, directly or

indirectly, on small entities.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a).

Decided: June 6, 2000.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner

Clyburn.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–14879 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. 42052]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Petition for Declaratory Order—

Imposed Interchange Charges

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Institution of declaratory order

proceeding; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Board is instituting a

proceeding under 5 U.S.C. 554(e) to

resolve questions concerning the right of

a rail carrier to impose charges

unilaterally against other carriers for

events that may occur when cars are

interchanged.

DATES: Comments by or on behalf of all

interested parties are due July 12, 2000.

Replies are due August 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The original and 10 copies

of comments referring to STB Docket

No. 42052 must be sent to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423–

0001, ATTN: STB Docket No. 42052.

In addition, send one copy of

comments to: (1) Union Pacific Railroad

Company, Robert T. Opal, General

Commerce Counsel, 1416 Dodge Street,

Room 830, Omaha, Nebraska 68179; (2)

Iowa Interstate Railroad, Ltd., Edward J.

Krug, Krug & Beckelman, P.L.C., 401

First Street S.E., Suite 330, P.O. Box

186, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406–0186; (3)

City of Tacoma Public Utilities, d/b/a

Tacoma Rail, Mark Bubenik, Chief

Assistant City Attorney, P.O. Box 11007,

Tacoma, WA 98411–0007; (4) Roger A.

Serpe, General Counsel, Indiana Harbor

Belt Railroad Company, 111 West

Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1128, Chicago,

Illinois 60604–3502; and (5) William C.

Sippel, Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher &

Sippel LLC, Two Prudential Plaza, Suite

3125, 180 North Stetson Avenue,

Chicago, Illinois 60601–6710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 14, 2000, Union Pacific

Railroad Company (UP or petitioner)

filed a petition seeking a declaratory

order to resolve a dispute over the right

of a rail carrier to impose charges

unilaterally against other carriers for

events that may occur when cars are

interchanged. Replies to the petition

have been filed by respondents Indiana

Harbor Belt Railroad Company (Indiana

Harbor Belt), Iowa Interstate Railroad,

Ltd. (Iowa Interstate), and City of

Tacoma, Tacoma Public Utilities, d/b/a

Tacoma Rail and Tacoma Beltline

Railroad (Tacoma Beltline) (collectively,

respondents).

Specifically, UP seeks a declaration

that, under 49 U.S.C. 11121, a rail

carrier may not unilaterally impose

charges on another carrier for

interchange of cars, either by ‘‘tariff’’ or

otherwise, and that interchange-related

charges imposed by one carrier on

another must be either permitted by

agreement of the carriers involved or

specifically authorized by the Board.

The controversy arises as a consequence

of ‘‘tariff’’ provisions issued by

respondents, pursuant to which charges

may be imposed when cars are not

pulled from interchange within