42154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29,

1997.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 27188.

Petitioner: Knighthawk Air Express

Ltd.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.77(a).

Description of Relied South/

Disposition: To permit Knighthawk

pilots to be issued special purpose pilot

certificates to perform pilot duties on a

civil airplane of U.S. registry, a Falcon

20D, Registration No. N950RA, without

that airplane meeting the passenger

seating configuration and payload

capacity requirements of 14 CFR

61.77(a).

Grant, July 17, 1997, Exemption No.

6660

Docket No.: 28079.

Petitioner: General Electric Aircraft

Engines.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

21.325(b)(1).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit General Electric

Aircraft Engines (GEAE) to obtain export

airworthiness approvals for Class I

products manufactured under GEAE

Production Certificate No. 107 at the

Universal Maintenance Center of P.T.

Industri Pesawat Terbang Nurtanio in

Bandung, Indonesia.

Grant, July 17, 1997, Exemption No.

6139A

Docket No.: 28760.

Petitioner: Douglas Aircraft Company/

McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.785(d), 25.807(c)(1), 25.857(e),

25.1447(c)(1).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow for the

accommodation of up to two

supernumeraries immediately aft of the

cockpit, and a crew rest facility

immediately aft of the smoke barrier and

crash net, on MD–11 freighter aircraft

equipped with a Class E cargo

compartment.

Grant, July 14, 1997, Exemption No.

6656

Docket No.: 22706.

Petitioner: Bankair, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.225(e)(1).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow Bankair’s pilots to

operate Bankair’s aircraft at any U.S.

military base that has adopted the

criteria contained in the U.S. Standard

for Terminal Instrument Procedures

(TERPS) used for determining lowerthan-standard departure minimums

using takeoff visibility minimums that

are less than 1 mile and equal to or

greater than the landing visibility

minimums established for those

airfields.

Grants, July 22, 1997, Exemption No.

6661

Docket No.: 21605.

Petitioner: Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.574(a) (1) and (3).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the carriage and

operation of oxygen storage and

dispensing equipment for medical use

by patients requiring emergency or

continuing medical attention while

being carried as passengers where the

oxygen equipment is furnished and

maintained by hospitals treating the

patients, within the states of Alaska or

Washington, subject to certain

conditions and limitations.

Grant, July 21, 1997, Exemption No.

3850F

Docket No.: 27230.

Petitioner: Era Aviation, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow Era to operate

certain helicopters under the provisions

of part 135 without TSO–C112 (Mode S)

transponders.

Grant, July 24, 1997, Exemption No.

5718B

[FR Doc. 97–20566 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and

Development (R,E&D) Advisory

Committee

Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.

L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is

hereby given of a meeting of the FAA

Research, Engineering and Development

Advisory Committee. The meeting will

be held on September 9–10, 1997 at the

Holiday Inn Rosslyn Westpark Hotel,

1900 North Fort Myer Drive, Arlington,

Virginia.

On Tuesday, September 9, 1997 the

meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end

at 5:00 p.m. On Wednesday, September

10, 1997 the meeting will begin at 8:30

a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. The meeting

will consist of presentations on the FY

2005 Operational Concept, the NAS

Architecture Version 3.0, the Flight

2000 Plan and FAA responses to

committee recommendations.

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space available.

Persons wishing to attend the meeting

or obtain information should contact

Lee Olson at the Federal Aviation

Administration, AAR–200, 800

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20591 (202) 267–7358.

Members of the public may present a

written statement to the Committee at

any time.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 29, 1997.

Jan Brecht-Clark,

Acting Director, Office of Aviation Research.

[FR Doc. 97–20565 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petitions for Waivers 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

requests for waivers of compliance with

certain requirements of its safety

standards. The individual petitions are

described below, including the parties

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions

involved, the nature of the relief being

requested, and the petitioners’

arguments in favor of relief.

National Railroad Passenger

Corporation (Waiver Petition Docket

Number PB–94–3)

The National Railroad Passenger

Corporation (Amtrak) seeks a waiver of

compliance from certain sections of the

Railroad Power Brakes and Drawbars

regulations, 49 CFR part 232. In 1995,

FRA granted a waiver (Waiver Petition

Docket Number PB–94–3) to Amtrak to

extend the frequency for the cleaning,

oiling, testing, and stenciling (COT&S)

of passenger cars equipped with 26–C

brake equipment from the required 36

months to 48 months. Amtrak requests

that commuter rail passenger cars

owned by the following commuter

agencies, but operated and maintained

by Amtrak under individual contract

agreements, be under the maintenance

conditions set forth in Waiver Docket

Number PB–94–3:

Connecticut Department of

Transportation—31 coaches
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42155

Maryland Rail Commuter—110 coaches

Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority—358 coaches

North Carolina Department of

Transportation—14 coaches

Virginia Railway Express—59 coaches

Please note that some of the

commuter agencies’ coaches are cab

control cars. 49 CFR 229.14 requires that

components added to the passenger car

that enable it to serve as a lead

locomotive, control the locomotive

actually providing tractive power, and

otherwise control the movement of the

train, are subject to the requirements of

49 CFR part 229. Therefore, only the

brake system components not subject to

the requirements of 49 CFR 229.14 are

to be considered in this petition for any

cab control car.

Amtrak declares that the commuter

rail equipment is maintained in

accordance to all applicable FRA

requirements, Association of American

Railroad’s maintenance practices, and

Amtrak’s standard maintenance

procedures. Amtrak also contends that

the service conditions on the commuter

car fleets are considered to be consistent

with those conditions under which

Amtrak’s four year test for COT&S was

conducted.

Norfolk Southern Corporation (Waiver

Petition Docket Number RST–96–3)

The Norfolk Southern Corporation

(NS) seeks a waiver from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 213.241 to

allow it to submit and maintain track

inspection records via an electronic

system.

In its petition, NS refers to the

provisions of § 213.241 which require

that each record of an inspection be

prepared on the day the inspection is

made and signed by the person making

the inspection. NS believes that these

provisions do not specifically mandate

a paper-based recordkeeping system,

and states that to the extent that this

part implies such a requirement, it be

granted a waiver to substitute electronic

records for paper ones. NS further

requests that it be permitted to input the

records of inspection within one day’s

time of the date on which the inspection

is made.

NS states that the use of the electronic

system would allow the railroad to

significantly reduce the volume of paper

reports (estimated to average

approximately 600 reports each week)

and the associated handling costs. NS

also states that the electronic reporting

system could be effected without cost to

any party and without disrupting or

destroying the integrity of the present

record system.

Under the proposed reporting

procedure, track inspectors would

continue to make their inspections and

gather information on handwritten notes

or, potentially, laptop computers. The

proposed filing system would merely

alter the way in which the inspection

report is submitted, stored, and

retrieved. Each track inspector would

have his/her own personal electronic

identity. The track inspector would call

up a form on NS’s e-mail network, insert

the pertinent information on the form,

and send it electronically to the regional

offices. Upon receipt via e-mail in the

regional offices, hard copy reports

would be placed into files along the

same lines as are currently used. In the

future, NS states that it will develop a

separate database to store all track

inspection reports.

NS declares that its policy prohibits

the sharing and duplication of

passwords, thus preserving the

uniqueness of each user’s identity. Once

the inspection report is completed by

the inspector, the computer system

would not accept subsequent alterations

or modifications of the report. The

computer system would allow

subsequent access to such reports, or

compilations of information generated

therefrom, but would limit this access to

a read-only basis.

NS anticipates that, in virtually all

instances, the record of inspection will

be prepared and entered into the

electronic system on the inspection

date. However, NS states that it is

possible for the input process to be

delayed in rare instances, such as when

the system mainframe computer is taken

off-line for periodic software

maintenance, when the reporting

inspector is called out to respond to an

emergency situation, or when the

inspector is located at a site where he/

she does not have access to a terminal.

NS asks that it be granted the one-day

grace period for these rare

circumstances.

NS believes that the granting of the

petition would provide positive benefits

for all parties involved and an

immediate increase in efficiency while

reducing costs.

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

the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested party desires

an opportunity for oral comment, they

should notify FRA, in writing, before

the end of the comment period and

specify the basis for their request.

All communications concerning these

proceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

Petition Docket Number PB–94–3) and

must be submitted in triplicate to the

Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Mail Stop 25, Washington,

DC 20590. Communications received

within 30 days of the date of this notice

will be considered by FRA before final

action is taken. Comments received after

that date will be considered as far as

practicable. All written communications

concerning these proceedings are

available for examination during regular

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at FRA’s

temporary docket room located at 1120

Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 7051,

Washington, DC 20005.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on July 29,

1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–20514 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief From

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as

detailed below.

Block Signal Application (BS–AP)–No.

3432

Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. R. M. Kadlick, Chief

Engineer Train Control, 500 Water

Street (S/C J–350), Jacksonville, Florida

32202.

CSX Transportation, Incorporated

seeks approval of the proposed

modification of the traffic control

system, on the single main track, at

Haines City, Florida, milepost A–

828.38, Sanford Subdivision,

Jacksonville Service Lane, consisting of

the discontinuance and removal of

controlled signals 106RA and 106LA.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate facilities no

longer needed in present day operation,