7492 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices

action. A request for Federal action or

approval to implement specific noise

compatibility measures may be

required, and an FAA decision on the

request may require an environmental

assessment of the proposed action.

Approval does not constitute a

commitment by the FAA to financially

assist in the implementation of the

program nor a determination that all

measures covered by the program are

eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the

FAA. Where Federal funding is sought,

requests for project grants must be

submitted to the FAA Regional Office in

Kansas City, Missouri.

In May 1996, the STLAA submitted to

the FAA the Noise Exposure Maps,

descriptions, and other documentation

produced during the Noise

Compatibility Planning study. The

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

Noise Exposure Maps were determined

by FAA to be in compliance with

applicable requirements on July 15,

1996. Notice of this determination was

published in the Federal Register on

July 31, 1996.

The Lambert-St. Louis International

Airport study contains a proposed

update to its Noise Compatibility

Program comprised of actions designed

for phased implementation by airport

management from the date of study

completion to beyond the year 2002. It

was requested that the FAA evaluate

and approve this material as a noise

compatibility program as described in

Section 104(b) of the Act. The FAA

began its review of the program on July

15, 1996, and was required by a

provision in the Act to approve or

disapprove the program within 180

days. Failure to approve or disapprove

such program within the 180-day period

shall be deemed to be an approval of

such program.

The submitted program contained

numerous proposed actions for noise

abatement and mitigation on and off the

airport, which were contained in the

technical report entitled ‘‘FAR Part 150

Noise Compatibility Program Update.’’

The FAA completed its review and

determined that the procedural and

substantive requirements of the Act and

FAR part 150 have been satisfied. The

overall program, therefore, was

approved by the Associate

Administrator effective January 10,

1997.

Outright approval was granted for all

measures in the NCP, with the

exception of a portion of one measure

related to height hazard zoning, which

is not within the purview of part 150,

and another measure which is a flight

procedure that does not have to be acted

on within the 180-day formal review

period. An FAA determination on this

flight procedure is anticipated within

about 30 days.

Some of the approved noise

abatement measures include: continued

informal noise abatement procedures

and implementation of additional

enhanced noise control procedures;

completion of ongoing acquisition of

homes in Kinloch, East Kinloch,

Southeast and Southwest Berkley,

Ramona Hills, Bridgeton, Bridgeton

Terrace, McNulty Manor, and

Robertson; development of a sound

insulation and sales (transaction)

assistance program; and an automated

aircraft monitoring system to assist the

Airport in tracking the progress of the

noise control procedures.

These determinations are set forth in

detail in a Record of Approval endorsed

by the Associate Administrator on

January 10, 1997. The Record of

Approval, as well as other evaluation

materials and the documents

comprising the submittal, are available

for review at the FAA office listed above

and at the Lambert-St Louis Airport

Planning and Development Office, 4610

N. Lindbergh, Bridgeton, Missouri.

Questions may be directed to the

individual named above under the

heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

February 5, 1997.

George A. Hendon,

Manager, Airports Division.

[FR Doc. 97–4066 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

[Summary Notice No. PE–97–9]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition document

number involved and must be received

on or before March 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. , 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20591.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed with the assigned regulatory

docket and are available for examination

in the Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room

915G, FAA Headquarters Building (FOB

10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone

(202) 267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Haynes (202) 267–3939 or Angela

Anderson (202) 267–9681 Office 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, D.C., on February

12, 1997.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 010NM

Petitioner: Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.809(f)

Description of Relief Sought: To provide

an increased level of safety by

permitting the use of an inertia reel

for each of the seven crew-member

occupants in addition to an escape

rope at the crew entry door of the

757–200PF airplanes. A separate

inertia reel and harness will be

provided for each of the seven crewmember occupants.

Docket No.: 137CE

Petitioner: Air Tractor, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

23.3

Description of Relief Sought: To permit

the AT–10, a freight carrying aircraft,

to exceed the 12,500 pound limitation

for a normal category aircraft.

Docket No.: 28774

Petitioner: Mid-East Jet, Inc.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices 7493

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.67(c)(2)(iii)(B)(4)(ii) and

(d)(2)(i)(B), 61.68(d)(2)(ii)(C)(2) and

(e)(2)(i)(B), and 61.158(d)(1)

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

Mid East Jet, Inc. to use Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA)-

approved Boeing Company (Boeing)

simulators for 100 percent of its pilot

training, testing, and checking while

using Boeing’s approved 14 CFR part

121 flight training program.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 20583

Petitioner: Tenneco, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.57 (c)(3) and (d)(2), and 61.58(e)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit pilots

employed by Tenneco, Inc. to

complete their entire 24-month pilotin-command (PIC) check in an FAAapproved flight simulator.

Grant, January 28, 1997, Exemption No.

6572

Docket No.: 25052

Petitioner: Taquan Air Service, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.203(a)(1)

Description of Relief Sought Disposition:

To permit Ketchikan Air Service, Inc.,

TEMSCO Helicopters, Inc./TEMSCO

Airlines, Taquan Air Service, Inc.,

and Misty Fjords Air and Outfitting,

conducting operations under part 135,

to operate seaplanes inside the

Ketchikan, Alaska, Class E airspace

under Special Visual flight Rules

(SVFR) below 500 feet above the

surface.

Grant, January 24, 1997, Exemption No.

4760E

Docket No.: 25731

Petitioner: Experimental Aircraft

Association

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

45.25 and 45.29

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow members of the

Experimental Aircraft Association and

members of the Confederate Air Force

to operate their historic military

aircraft with 2-inch high nationality

and registration marks located

beneath the aircraft’s horizontal

stabilizer.

Grant, December 11, 1996, Exemption

No. 5019D

Docket No.: 26340

Petitioner: Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.433(c)(1)(iii), 121.440(a), and

121.441(a)(1) and (b)(1); appendix F to

part 121; and Special Federal

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 58,

paragraph 6(b)(3)(ii)(A)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow Delta Air Lines,

Inc. to combine recurrent flight and

ground training and proficiency

checks for its crewmembers in a

single annual training and proficiency

evaluation session, and to meet the

line check requirements through an

alternative line check program.

Grant, January 27, 1997, Exemption No.

5271E

Docket No.: 26559

Petitioner: Helicopter Association

International

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

43.3(a)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit properly

trained pilots employed by member

operators of Helicopter Association

International and the Association of

Air Medical Services to remove and

reinstall liquid oxygen containers in

their aircraft after receiving

appropriate training by a properly

certified airframe mechanic.

Grant, December 26, 1996, Exemption

No. 6002A

Docket No.: 26732

Petitioner: Air Transport Association of

America

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.652 (a) and (c)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow Air Transport

Association of America (ATA)—

member airlines and other similarly

situated part 121 operators to permit

a pilot-in-command (PIC) conducting

operations under part 121 to perform

an instrument approach procedure to

the weather minima prescribed by

this exemption during the first 100

hours of service as a PIC, in the type

airplane he or she is operating, using

an alternative means approved by the

Administrator to satisfy the

requirements.

Grant, January 27, 1997, Exemption No.

5549C

Docket No.: 27852

Petitioner: Higher Power Aviation, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.55(b)(3); 61.56(h) (1), (2), and (3);

61.57(c)(3) and (d)(2), 61.58(e);

61.64(e)(3); 61.65 (e)(2), and (g) (1)

and (3); 61.67 (c)(4) and (d)(2);

61.158(d)(1); 61.191(d); and 61.197(e)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner

to use Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA)—approved

simulators to meet certain flight

experience requirements.

Grant, January 29, 1997, Exemption No.

5986A

Docket No.: 27867

Petitioner: Department of the Navy

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.209 (a) and (b)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the Navy,

specifically the United States Marine

Corps, to conduct helicopter nightvision flight device training

operations without lighted aircraft

position lights.

Grant, January 24, 1997, Exemption No.

5978B

Docket No.: 27933

Petitioner: Emery Worldwide Airlines

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.433(c)(1)(iii), 121.441 (a)(1) and

(b)(1), and appendix F to part 121

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the petitioner to

combine recurrent flight and ground

training and proficiency checks for its

flight crewmembers in a single annual

training and proficiency evaluation

program.

Grant, January 31, 1997, Exemption No.

6000A

Docket No.: 28599

Petitioner: James C. Fisher

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.383(c)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the petitioner to

act as pilot in command under 14 CFR

part 121 after his 60th birthday.

Denial, January 27, 1997, Exemption

No. 6574

Docket No.: 28723

Petitioner: Ryan International Airlines,

Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.203 (a) and (b)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner

to operate temporarily its U.S.-

registered aircraft following the

incidental loss or mutilation of that

aircraft’s airworthiness certificate or

registration certificate, or both.

Grant, January 24, 1997, Exemption No.

6571

Docket No.: 28749

Petitioner: GTA Air, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the petitioner to

operate aircraft under part 135

without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)

transponder installed.

Grant, January 27, 1997, Exemption No.

6573

Docket No.: 27885

Petitioner: Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.433(c)(1)(iii), 121.441 (a)(1) and

(b)(1), and appendix F to part 14 CFR

part 121

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the petitioner to

combine recurrent flight and ground

training and proficiency checks for its
7494 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices

flight crewmembers in a single annual

training and proficiency evaluation

program.

Grant, January 31, 1997, Exemption No.

6012A

[FR Doc. 97–4064 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Maritime Administration

[Docket No. M–028]

Application of Foreign Underwriters to

Write Marine Hull Insurance

The Maritime Administration

(MARAD) has received an application

under 46 CFR part 249 from HIH

Casualty and General Insurance

Limited, an Australia based

underwriter, to write marine hull

insurance on subsidized and Title XI

program vessels.

In accordance with 46 CFR 249.7(b),

interested persons are hereby afforded

an opportunity to bring to MARAD’s

attention any discriminatory laws or

practices relating to the placement of

marine hull insurance which may exist

in the applicant’s country of domicile.

Responses to this notice must be sent

to the Secretary, Maritime

Administration, Room 7300,

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20509, and must be received by close of

business on Wednesday, March 5, 1997.

Dated: February 13, 1997.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–4062 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 96–133, Notice 01]

Development of Improved Driver

Interview Procedures for Police Use at

Checkpoints

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and Request for

Comments on Data Collection.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) plays a

key role in the national effort to reduce

alcohol related traffic injuries and

deaths. One way the enforcement

community has tried to combat this

problem is by conducting sobriety

checkpoints; however, there is evidence

that many of the impaired drivers

passing through these checkpoints are

not detected by police. One component

of this study is the observation by

researchers of customary police

interviewing practices at sobriety

checkpoints. Behaviors and cues of

interviewed drivers will be linked to

their breath alcohol levels to develop

more effective screening procedures.

Breath samples will be obtained only

from drivers who volunteer to

participate in this study. Current data

on the best ways to improve driver

interviews by police at checkpoints do

not exist. NHTSA invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

comment the proposed data collection

as required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATE: Written comments must be

submitted on or before April 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to NHTSA, Docket Section, Room 5111,

Docket #96–133, Notice 01, 400 7th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marvin M. Levy, Ph.D., Contracting

Officer’s Technical Representative,

Office of Research and Traffic Records

(NTS–31), Washington, DC 20590,

Phone Number (202) 366–5597.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

Alcohol related traffic fatalities rose to

17,274 in 1995, 41 percent of all traffic

fatalities for the year. NHTSA is

committed to the development of

effective programs to reduce the number

of deaths and injuries related to alcoholimpaired driving. Among the law

enforcement activities aimed at

reducing drunk driving, sobriety

checkpoints can act both as a specific

deterrent, by apprehending impaired

drivers passing through the checkpoint,

and a general deterrent, by encouraging

motorists not to drive after drinking.

The success of sobriety checkpoints as

a deterrent depends to a large extent on

the perception of drivers that they will

be caught if they have been drinking.

However, past research suggests that

many impaired drivers are not being

detected by police at checkpoints. If

drivers conclude that they may not be

detected, then the effectiveness of this

enforcement approach may decline.

There is some evidence that police

interview procedures can be improved,

for impaired drivers who are stopped

and still seated in their vehicle, when

police use a procedure employing eye

gaze nystagmus. Other cues or

combination of cues may also result in

improved detection rates.

The objective of this study is to

develop and test an improved set of

checkpoint interview procedures that

police may use to detect more

effectively drivers who are at illegal

blood alcohol concentrations [BACs].

II. Method of Data Collection

Data will be collected voluntarily at

two separate sites in cooperating police

jurisdictions during regularly scheduled

checkpoint operations. To examine the

effectiveness of cues and procedures

that officers can use to detect drivers at

illegal BACs, researchers will

accompany officers while they are

conducting routine driver interviews.

Researchers will observe what the

police do, by listening to the kinds of

questions they ask and what motorists

say in response to police inquiries, and

how the drivers behave. Also, drivers

will be observed for visual and other

cues or signs indicative of alcohol

consumption. For those drivers who

have been permitted to proceed, a

researcher, located downstream of the

inteviewing officer, will ask the driver

to consent to blow into a device that

measures the driver’s breath alcohol.

Each motorist will be assured of

confidentiality. No identifiers, such as

names, addresses, or license plate

numbers, will be obtained regardless of

whether or not the motorist agrees to

cooperate. Also, no information about

the results from breath alcohol testing

will be provided to the police. No

survey questions will be asked of

drivers. The researchers will be using

portable non-evidentiary quality

‘‘screening devices’’ to measure BAC. In

the event that a driver who may be at

an illegal BAC is identified, he or she

will be informed of the BAC findings

and provided with suggested remedies

such as having a sober passenger drive,

or taking a cab provided by the

researchers.

III. Use of the Findings

The findings from researcher

observations of checkpoint operations

will help determine whether further

development of an improved battery of

police interview procedures is

warranted. If the results are positive, a

field test will be conducted as part of

this study to determine whether the new

procedures are an improvement over

those customarily used by police to

detect drivers at illegal BACs. Should

the findings from the field test be

successful, a police training package,

containing the improved procedures,

will be developed and disseminated to

police agencies.

Improved interview procedures will

help police officers at checkpoints make

more accurate decisions regarding

which drivers should or should not be

detained for further sobriety testing.