Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices 45007

Affected Public: U.S. Steamship and

intermodal equipment leasing

companies.

Abstract: The collection consists of an

intermodal equipment inventory that

provides data essential to both the

government and the transportation

industry in planning for the most

efficient use of intermodal equipment.

Need and Use of the Information: The

information contained in the inventory

provides data about U.S.-based

companies that own or lease intermodal

equipment and is essential to both

government and industry in planning

for contingency operations.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 66

hours.

Estimated Annual Respondents: 22

companies.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725–17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT

Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on: whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department’s estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19,

1997.

Vanester M. Williams,

Clearance Officer, United States Department

of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–22518 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Proceedings Agreements

Filed During the Week of August 11,

1997

The following Agreements were filed

with the Department of Transportation

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C 412

and 414. Answers may be filed within

21 days of date of filing.

Docket Number: OST–97–2793.

Date Filed: August 11, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject:

CAC/Reso/188 dated May 14, 1997.

Finally Adopted Resolutions r1–11.

Minutes—CAC/Meet/118 dated July

14, 1997.

Summary attached.

Intended effective date: September 1,

1997.

Paulette V. Twine,

Chief, Documentary Services.

[FR Doc. 97–22538 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Application for Certificates of

Public Convenience and Necessity and

Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under

Subpart Q During the Week Ending

August 15, 1997

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart Q of

the Department of Transportation’s

Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR

302.1701 et seq.). The due date for

Answers, Conforming Applications, or

Motions to Modify Scope are set forth

below for each application. Following

the Answer period DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.

Such procedures may consist of the

adoption of a show-cause order, a

tentative order, or in appropriate cases

a final order without further

proceedings.

Docket Number: OST–97–2794

Date Filed: August 11, 1997

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: September 8, 1997

Description:

Application of Tradewinds Airlines,

Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section

41102 and Subpart Q of the

Regulations, requests a certificate of

public convenience and necessity

authorizing Tradewinds to engage

in interstate charter air

transportation of persons, property

and mail.

Docket Number: OST–97–2795

Date Filed: August 11, 1997

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: September 8, 1997

Description:

Application of Tradewinds Airlines,

Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section

41102 and Subpart Q of the

Regulations, requests a certificate of

public convenience and necessity

authorizing Tradewinds to engage

in foreign charter air transportation

of persons, property and mail.

Paulette V. Twine,

Chief, Documentary Services.

[FR Doc. 97–22537 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

notice of public comment period and

schedule of public hearings; correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the Notice referenced in

ACTION above, as published in the

Federal Register on August 15, 1997 [62

FR 43768]. The Notice announces

numerous times, that public hearings

will be held Wednesday, September 17,

1997, and Thursday, September 18,

1997. At one location the date is

incorrectly listed as Thursday, October

18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerome D. Schwartz, Environmental

Specialist, Federal Aviation

Administration, Wind Shear Products

Team, AND–420, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591,

telephone (202) 267–9841.

Correction of Publication: In the

notice document on page 43768 in the

issue of Friday, August 15, 1997, make

the following correction:

In the DATES section on page 43768,

second column, at the last of four

references to the hearing on Thursday

the 18th, the month is listed as October.

The month should be changed to read

September.

Issued in Washington, DC on August 19,

1997.

Carl P. McCullough,

Product Lead, Wind Shear Products Team,

AND–420.

[FR Doc. 97–22501 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Revision to Airport Capital

Improvement Plan

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of revision to Airport

Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)

National Priority System.

SUMMARY: On May 22, 1996, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a

Notice requesting comments regarding

the National Priority System (NPS) (61

Federal Register 25731). The NPS is

used to assist in the development of the

Airport Capital Improvement Plan

(ACIP) as well as provide a basis for the
45008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices

distribution of Airport Improvement

Program (AIP) monies. Provided herein

is a summary of the comments received

and FAA responses. Based on these

comments and additional direction from

the Congress contained in the Federal

Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996

(Pub. L. 104–264), the FAA has

modified its NPS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Stan Lou, Manager, Programming

Branch, APP–520, (202) 267–8809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

response to the Federal Register notice

of May 22, 1996, the FAA received

forty-eight letters containing comments.

Eighteen letters were received from

State organizations; nine letters were

received from trade organizations;

fifteen were received from airports; and

six were received from other

respondents such as airport consultants.

The FAA has divided these comments

into the following categories for

evaluation: general comments, formula

modifications, and consideration of

other factors. A discussion of each

category is provided below. FAA’s

response to all three categories follows

this section.

The summary of comments is

intended to represent the divergence or

correspondence of industry views. It is

not intended as an exhaustive

restatement of comments received. All

comments received were considered by

the FAA, even if not specifically

identified in this summary.

Background

Historically, the demand for

discretionary funds has exceeded the

amount available for distribution. As a

result, a priority system was developed

primarily to standardize evaluation of

airport development projects. The

priority system is a process that

supports agency goals and objectives by

ensuring that the highest priority

development work is being completed

nationwide. It uses a formula which

generates a numeric value (national

priority rating, NPR) for each project

item taking into account project type

and airport size. Under this system,

project types are ranked by their

purpose; projects ensuring airport safety

and security are ranked as the most

important priorities, followed by

maintaining current infrastructure

development, mitigating noise and other

environmental impacts, meeting

standards, and increasing system

capacity. This system is designed to

facilitate routine prioritization for all

proposed AIP projects, and most AIP

discretionary monies are distributed

based on these numeric values. While

the FAA’s grant allocation process

provides sufficient flexibility to

consider other factors in addition to a

project’s priority rating, the use of these

other factors has not been formalized.

General Comments

The three comments of a general

nature suggested using the priority

system to develop a National Plan of

airport development, to develop a

structured project selection process

under AIP, and to provide more

flexibility for individual airport

innovation.

FAA Should Modify NPS Formula

Sixty-eight separate comments

addressed some aspect of the formula

used in rating projects under the NPS.

The largest number of these comments

objected to the higher weight that the

NPS gives large and medium hub

airports. Twenty-eight respondents

indicated that the NPS formula favors

larger airports to the detriment of

smaller airports. In many of the

comments, the argument was made that

large airports are more likely to have

access to non-federal sources of revenue

to fund airport development and should

not be granted an advantage over

smaller airports which are more

dependent on federal aid to fund airport

development. The respondents included

fifteen State organizations, three trade

organizations, seven individual airports,

and three others.

The second largest number of

comments addressed the actual formula,

discussing either the points assigned to

each project category or the number and

type of project categories. Twenty-four

respondents either suggested some

adjustment to points assigned a category

or suggested additional categories.

A total of eight comments suggested

that the categories used in the formula

need to be better defined so that the

aviation industry has an improved

understanding of how the FAA ranks

the importance of projects. Another six

comments recommended that the use of

the point totals should be reversed so

that the FAA’s highest priorities are

reflected in highest scores (rather than

the lowest score representing the

highest priority).

Finally, two comments addressed the

use of airport size as a factor for

selection of noise projects. The

respondents argued that airport size can

be irrelevant to exposure to noise, e.g.,

two structures in the 75 DNL have

similar noise exposure whether the

airports are large hub airports or small

hub airports.

FAA Should Consider Other Factors in

AIP Project Selection

Twenty-nine comments supported use

of the NPS, but in conjunction with

input from FAA Regional Offices and

Airports District Offices and from

airport sponsors at time of AIP

allocation decisions. A common

objection was that the FAA’s NPS only

uses a single value to select projects and

does not provide a formalized ability to

account for factors both quantitative and

qualitative such as local priorities,

financial resources and risk assessments

when selecting projects for Federal

funding.

Twenty comments requested that

local priorities or state priorities be

considered in AIP project selection.

Some suggested including the economic

benefit of the airport to its community.

Seven comments suggested assigning

identical numeric priorities to all phases

of a project. Under the existing system,

for example, land acquisition required

to construct a runway extension may

have a lower priority than the

construction of the runway extension

itself, causing delays in the baseline

project. Commenters suggested that all

work elements contain the same priority

as the baseline project.

Finally, two comments addressed

issues such as prior commitments in

project selection. Five comments

addressed the role of cost factors in

project selection. Two comments

suggested consideration of future airport

growth in project selection. Seven

comments addressed use of Pavement

Condition Index in pavement

rehabilitation projects. Six comments

suggested considering ‘‘economy of

scale,’’ whereby other development at

the same airport may be raised in

priority to take advantage of a

contracting opportunity at that airport.

FAA Response: We agree that the

formulation of a National Plan is

essential to the safe and efficient

operation of the National Airspace

System (NAS). The National Plan of

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), as

required by Section 47103 of Title 49 of

United States Code (USC), is the FAA’s

document that provides long and short

range cost estimates of AIP eligible

projects associated with establishing a

system of airports adequate to meet the

needs of the NAS. The NPS has been

created to prioritize these needs in

accordance with the FAA’s goals and

objectives and rank them accordingly.

One element within the NPS is the

NPR. The NPR has been used

successfully as a screening tool to

identify projects of sufficient national

interest to warrant investment of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices 45009

Federal funds. The priority system has

taken on greater importance as AIP

appropriations have decreased and as

the FAA has been required to adopt

performance measures and investment

criteria to support grant allocation

decisions.

The FAA realizes that a numerical

rating alone cannot account for all

quantitative and qualitative factors that

may effect the importance of an

individual airport development project.

Factors such as benefit-cost analysis,

impact on safety, and system

performance should be considered

when selecting projects for Federal

funding. In addition, section 47115(d) of

Title 49 USC, requires consideration of

airport improvement priorities of the

States, and regional offices of the

Administration, to the extent such

priorities are not in conflict with the

effect the project will have on the

overall national air transportation

system capacity and the project benefit

and cost.

The NPR serves as an initial screen for

the majority of projects selected; and, on

a more limited basis, the NPR is used in

tandem with other factors. These other

factors, in addition to the list provided

in the previous paragraph, include

environmental issues, regional, state

and metropolitan system plans, airport

growth, and market forces, which are

considered in AIP project selection

today. However, the current system does

not have a formal process to account for

these factors in project selection. As a

result, the FAA will develop a process

to serve as a secondary screen to the

NPR and account for these other factors.

Although there is an element of the

airport size in the priority calculations,

the net effect of this element has been

minimal in practice. This is due in part

to discretionary set-asides and specific

apportionments contained in the

statutory distribution of AIP funds.

Airport size will continue to be

considered along with other factors for

project selection. However, the

introduction of the new priority

calculation formula will permit a greater

reliance on the actual project type as

opposed to the airport type.

The FAA agrees that the current

system has created confusion

concerning the formula and how it is

used. As a result, the FAA has included

a definition section in this Notice for

further clarification. Further, the FAA

agrees that the point totals should be

reversed for ease of application.

Henceforth, under the revised system,

the higher the point rating, the higher

priority assigned to a project.

The FAA also agrees that all work

items associated with a major airport

improvement be treated as having one

priority value. This policy is reflected in

Appendix I.

In response to the comments that the

NPS and the categories used in the

National Priority Calculation should be

better defined, we offer the following:

The ACIP is a product which helps

identify, plan, fund, and execute airport

development in such a way as to ensure

that the highest and most critical needs

are met with limited funding. It

communicates needs and funding plans

for airport sponsors, states, FAA, and

others who have a stake in the

development of the NAS.

The NPS is a tool by which FAA

evaluates projects, contained in the

ACIP, for AIP funding. NPS uses many

factors: national plans; goals and

objectives; anticipated AIP funding

levels; a numerical project rating; and

other regional and/or local factors as

described in this notice.

In order to implement these concepts,

a standard database has been

established. This database (NPIAS–CIP)

provides a common data structure to

compile and analyze airport

development needs. It is used by FAA

to help determine the distribution of

AIP discretionary funds in compliance

with Title 49 USC.

An element of the NPS is the

determination of objective priority

ratings for airport projects. A numerical

priority calculation ranks work items in

accordance with agency goals and

objectives. Priority numbers are

calculated based on the size and type of

airport (service level) and the type of

project (as described by the NPIAS–CIP

project codes). The revised NPS

calculation provides a standard means

to sort airport needs from highest to

lowest priority, evaluates funding plans

(the ACIP) versus the highest priority

needs, improves upon the existing AIP

priority system, and aids in project

selection for discretionary funding.

The NPS calculation and project

selection process are outlined in

Appendix I.

The FAA appreciates the time and

effort of the respondents. After carefully

considering these comments and after

evaluation of the additional statutory

direction contained in Public Law 104–

264, the FAA hereby issues the

following Policy.

This policy is issued pursuant to the

authority of Title 49, United States

Code.

Issued in Washington, DC on August 19,

1997.

Ellis A. Ohnstad,

Manager, Airports Financial Assistance

Division.

Appendix I

Policy/Procedure

a. Internal guidance will be published and

revised as needed to carry out the intent of

this notice. This guidance will be shared

with states, sponsors and others as

determined by each Regional Office.

b. It is the intent of this notice that all work

items associated with major airport

improvements should be treated as one

priority value under the NPS, e.g., lighting

and marking with runway reconstruction;

land acquisition with obstruction removal. In

these instances, ACIP program submittals

should provide a complete schedule of

projects for the entire major airport

improvement.

c. Sound and consistent ACIP concepts

must be employed by FAA, states, and

sponsors for effective project selection.

d. The FAA Headquarters Office of Airport

Planning and Programming will publish

standard project descriptions and project

coding requirements to ensure consistency

nationally.

e. Use of passenger, cargo, and state area

population entitlement funds is encouraged

on high priority NPS projects. Final

determination of actual discretionary funds

availability may be based on entitlement

usage as well as other factors.

f. Project justification for projects not

included in the priority level or the listing of

national program of candidate projects must

be based on additional qualitative evaluation

to be formalized prior to fiscal year 1999.

Larger projects, requesting $5 million or more

in discretionary funds, will require more in

depth analysis both at the regional and

national level, including benefit-cost

analysis.

g. The FAA Headquarters Office of Airport

Planning and Programming will publish

recommended project evaluation analysis

criteria which may be used for project

selection and project justifications. This

analysis will be consistent with Title 49 USC,

related policy, and national FAA goals and

objectives.

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Project

Selection Process

a. Regional Offices initiate the ACIP

process through coordination and input from

planning studies, sponsors, states, the

NPIAS, national planning and other sources.

An ACIP program of development for the

upcoming fiscal year and beyond is

submitted annually to FAA Headquarters

Office of Airport Planning and Programming.

b. FAA Office of Airport Planning and

Programming will apply numerical priority

ratings to the ACIP program using an

anticipated AIP funding level. The numerical

priority ratings will serve as an initial screen

to produce a listing of projects.

c. The projects that have successfully

competed using the numerical ratings will be

identified to the FAA Regional Offices.
45010 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices

Regional Offices, after review, may appeal to

the FAA Office of Planning and Programming

for any projects that have not qualified for

further consideration. Acceptable projects

plus those that rate above the priority level

make up the national program of candidate

projects.

d. After any limitation on contract

authority is enacted through an appropriation

act, the FAA Headquarters will advise FAA

Regional Offices of actual funds availability

based upon the appropriations act’s

enactment, ACIP programs, and other factors.

e. FAA will then make final selection of

projects from the listing of candidate projects

identified in step c., above, based on

qualitative factors such as benefit-cost

analysis, risk assessment, environmental

issues, regional priorities, state and

metropolitan system plans, airport growth,

and market forces.

f. FAA Headquarters will evaluate national

performance of the completed development

program and make adjustments to the NPS as

needed to ensure attainment of national goals

and objectives. All adjustments to the NPS

will be done in accordance with this Notice.

National Priority Rating

The following general equation was

developed:

Priority Rating =

(k5*P)*[k1*APT)+(k2*P)+(k3*C)+(k4*T)]

Where:

k1 = 1.00

k2 = 1.40

k3 = 1.00

k4 = 1.20

k5 = 0.25

P = Purpose

C = Component

T = Type

APT = Airport

Various coefficients were evaluated to

generate a NPR consistent with FAA

objectives. This resulted in the following

equation

Priority Rating=.25P*(APT+1.4P+C+1.2T)

The purpose code is used twice within the

equation to signify added importance. The

airport code is assigned a range of 2 to 5 to

provide sufficient variability to the size of the

airport; whereas, each of the other factors

range from 0 to 10. These factors are assigned

point values (pts) consistent with FAA goals

and objectives.

APT=Airport Code

Primary Commercial Service Airports

Large and Medium Hub=5 pts

Small and Non Hub=4 pts

Non Primary Commercial Service, Reliever,

and General Aviation Airports

Based Aircraft or Itinerant Operations

100 or 50,000=5 pts

50 or 20,000=4 pts

20 or 8,000=3 pts

<20 and <8,000=2 pts

P=Purpose Points (0 to 10 pts). (Purpose code

definitions follow the listing of all codes)

CA=Capacity=7 pts

EN=Environment=8 pts

OT=Other=4 pts

PL=Planning=8 pts

RE=Reconstruction/Rehabilitate=8 pts

SA=Safety/Security=10 pts

SP=Statutory Emphasis Programs=9 pts

ST=Standards=6 pts

C=Component Points (0 to 10 pts). (Some

codes are defined for clarification)

AP=Apron=5 pts

BD=Building=3 pts

EQ=Equipment=8 pts

FI=Financing (refers to financing costs

associated with bond retirement)=0 pts

GT=Ground Transportation (refers to people

movers and rail/road access)=4 pts

HE=Helipad=9 pts

HO=Homes (refers to noise mitigation

measures for residences)=7 pts

LA=Land=7 pts

NA=New Airport=4 pts

OT=Other (refers to varying project elements;

ie. fuel farms, airport drainage, etc.)=7

pts

PB=Public Bldg (refers to noise mitigation

measures for public buildings)=7 pts

PL=Planning=7 pts

RW=Runway=10 pts

SB=Seaplane=9 pts

TE=Terminal=1 pt

TW=Taxiway=8 pts

VT=Vertiport=4 pts

T=Type Points (0 to 10 pts)

60=Outside 65 DNL=0 pts

65=65–69 DNL=4 pts

70=70–74 DNL=7 pts

75=Inside 75 DNL=10 pts

AC=Access to Airport=7 pts

AD=Administration Costs=0 pts

AQ=Acquire Airport=5 pts

BO=Bond Retirement=0 pts

CO=Construction=10 pts

DI=De-Icing Facility=6 pts

DV=Development Land=6 pts

EX=Extension/Expansion=6 pts

FF=Fuel Farm Development=2 pts

FR=Runway Friction=9 pts

IM=Improvements to Existing

Infrastructure=8 pts

IN=Instrument Approach Aid=7 pts

LI=Lighting=8 pts

MA=Master Planning=9 pts

ME=Metropolitan Planning=7 pts

MS=Miscellaneous=5 pts

MT=Environmental Mitigation=6 pts

NO=Noise Plan/Suppression=7 pts

OB=Obstruction Removal=10pts

PA=Automobile Parking=1pt

PM=People Mover=3pts

RF=Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF)

Vehicle=10pts

RL=Rail=3pts

SE=Security=6pts

SF=Runway Safety Area=8pts

SG=Runway/Taxiway Signs=9pts

SN=Snow Removal Equipment=9pts

SR=Sensors=8pts

ST=State Planning=8pts

SV=Airport Service Road=6pts

SF=Safety Zone (RPZ)=8pts

VI=Visual Approach Aid=8pts

VT=Construct V/Tol RW/Vert Plan=2pts

WX=Weather Reporting Equipment=8pts

Applying the above relationship produces

a numerical value between 0 and 100

depending upon the associated values for

APT, P, C and T. In general, projects with

higher numerical values are most consistent

with national goals. It is anticipated that

periodically the individual point values and

equation coefficients may be adjusted slightly

to reflect modified system needs and

priorities and experience gained in using the

revised NPS.

Purpose Category Definitions

Safety/Security

Definition: This category includes items

required by regulation in 14 CFR Part 107, 14

CFR part 139 or the Airport Certification

Manual and those safety/security items that

cannot be accommodated by any other

operational procedures to maintain an

equivalent level of safety/security. Also

included is airport hazard removal/marking.

Statutory Emphasis Programs

Definition: This category includes items

included in Title 49 USC, such as, runway

grooving, friction treatment, and distance-togo signs on all primary and secondary

runways at commercial service airports;

vertical visual guidance systems on all

primary runways; and runway lighting,

taxiway lighting, sign systems, and marking

for all commercial service airports.

Reconstruction/Rehabilitate

Definition: This category is defined as

development required to preserve, repair, or

restore the functional integrity of eligible

airport infrastructure.

Environment

Definition: This category includes actions

necessary to carry out the statutes set forth

in the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and 14 CFR part 150. Such actions

are defined within Environmental

Assessments (EA), Environmental Impact

Statements (EIS), and/or Noise Compatibility

Programs (NCP).

Planning

Definition: This category includes the

preliminary studies needed to define and

prioritize specific airport needs. Items such

as airport system and master planning are

included in this category.

Capacity

Definition: This category includes

development required to increase system

capacity by increasing the airport’s capacity

beyond its present designed activity level. In

this case, system capacity is defined as

increasing capacity at individual airports

experiencing or expecting to experience

20,000 hours or more of delay.

Standards

Definition: Development to bring existing

airports up to recommended FAA design

standards based on the current design

category.

Other

Definition: This category includes

development items other than those

necessary to safely operate an airport or for

improvement of airside capacity. Items such

as people movers, rail systems, access roads,

parking lots, fuel farms, and training systems

are included in this category.

[FR Doc. 97–22494 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M