Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices 59887

Coast Guard seeks a grantee to develop

a training aid to educate the recreational

boating public on GMDSS, including

information on GMDSS history,

component systems, GMDSS Sea Areas,

carriage requirements, potential

difficulties non-GMDSS equipped

recreational boat may encounter in

trying to communicate with SOLASclass vessels, Digital Selective Calling,

and system implementation time frame.

Point of Contact: CWO Michael Wedda,

202–267–1263.

14. Boating Safety Problem-Specific

Awareness. The Coast Guard seeks a

grantee to develop an informational

package dealing with several safety

issues, including carbon monoxide

dangers, propeller injury prevention, off

throttle steering properties and others to

be specified. The information would be

reproducible in pamphlet form as well

as in format for inclusion on the Office

of Boating Safety Web site. Elements

must support the year-round national

campaign. Point of Contact: Ms. Diane

Schneider, 202–267–1196.

15. Navigation Light Glare

Minimization. The Coast Guard seeks a

grantee to investigate the aspects of

recreational boat navigation light glare,

especially with regard to the use of the

‘‘all around’’ white light, and determine

what technologies or methodologies, if

any, might eliminate or minimize the

negative effects of glare on the vision of

the operator. Point of Contact: Mr.

Randolph J. Doubt, 202–267–6810.

16. Flotation Foam Study. The Coast

Guard seeks a grantee to perform testing

and analysis of current flotation foams

used in recreational vessels to

determine degree of water absorption,

effects of temperature variations, effects

of vibration, and effects of aging. Study

shall include both in-situ and asinstalled testing. Point of Contact: Mr.

Gary Larimer, 202–267–0986.

17. Carbon Monoxide Study. The

Coast Guard seeks a grantee to perform

testing on current and emerging

technologies for detection of carbon

monoxide in a marine environment.

Grantee shall also perform an analysis of

in-use carbon monoxide detection

equipment. Point of Contact: Mr.

Randolph J. Doubt, 202–267–6810.

18. Carbon Monoxide Build-up

Relative to Vessel Configurations Study.

The Coast Guard seeks a grantee to

investigate levels of carbon monoxide

build-up on recreational vessels relative

to particular vessel design and

equipment configuration. Point of

Contact: Mr. Randolph J. Doubt, 202–

267–6810.

19. Revise, Reprint and Produce Online the Guide for Multiple Use

Waterways Management. The Coast

Guard seeks a grantee to revise and

update ‘‘A Guide for Multiple Use

Waterway Management’’ produced

under a prior Coast Guard grant,

providing new management tools and

techniques that have been developed or

modified since the publication’s initial

release. In addition to providing the

Guide in a printed format to satisfy

current and anticipated future demand,

this project would also format the Guide

for availability and dissemination

through the Internet. Point of Contact:

CWO Michael Wedda, 202–267–1263.

20. Disseminate Personal Watercraft

(PWC) Renter Orientation Checklist. The

Coast Guard seeks a grantee to package

and disseminate printed copies of a

newly developed two-part PWC Renter

Orientation Checklist for broad

distribution to PWC livery operators and

others nationwide. The Checklist would

also be made available online via the

Internet. Point of Contact: Mr. Vann

Burgess, 202–267–6717. Potential

grantees should focus on partnership,

i.e., exploring other sources, linkages,

in-kind contributions, cost sharing, and

partnering with other organizations or

corporations. You may obtain a more

detailed discussion of specific projects

of interest to the Coast Guard by

contacting the Coast Guard Infoline at

800–368–5647 and requesting a copy of

a specific proposal. We also encourage

proposals addressing other boating

safety concerns.

The Boating Safety Financial Assistance

Program is listed in section 20.005 of the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Kenneth T. Venuto,

Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Director of

Operations Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–25753 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA–2000–8046; Notice No. 00–

12]

Exemption Reconsideration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Reconsideration of certain

exemptions.

SUMMARY: This notice contains a

summary of existing exemptions that

provide relief from regulations and

permit the use of electronic records and

electronic signatures. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) will

review these exemptions to determine if

they are appropriate candidates for

supersedure because of recent

legislative and internal actions.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received by October 26,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to

the Docket Management System, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Room

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must

identify the docket number FAA–2000–

8046 at the beginning of your

comments, and you should submit two

copies of your comments. If you wish to

receive confirmation that FAA received

your comments, include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

You may also submit comments

through the internet to http://

dms.dot.gov. You may review the public

docket containing comments to these

proposed actions in person in the

Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. The Dockets

Office is on the plaza level of the

NASSIF Building at the Department of

Transportation at the above address.

Also, you may review public dockets on

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Penland, Flight Standards

Service (AFS–200), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

Telephone (202) 267–3764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the past the FAA was contained by

practical considerations to limit the

reading of the language of certain

regulations in a manner that was not

conducive to the current electronic

environment. The language of these

regulations, while general, could only

be implemented by requiring

nonelectronic methods. This decision

was necessary because of the limited

technology available to the FAA at that

time. In addition, the FAA did not have

procedures in place to permit the

agency to provide for the general

acceptance of electronic data.

Exemptions from certain regulations

provided limited relief to permit the use

of electronic means of compliance.

The FAA recently developed internal

procedures to implement the

requirements of the Government

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA),

Public Law 105–277, 44 U.S.C. 3504,

which became law on October 21, 1998.

The GPEA requires federal agencies to

provide for (1) the option of electronic

maintenance, submission, or disclosure

of information, when practicable as a

substitute for paper; and (2) the use and

acceptance of electronic

59888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices

signatures, when practicable. The GPEA

also states:

‘‘Electronic records submitted or

maintained in accordance with procedures

developed under this Act, or electronic

signatures or other forms of electronic

authentication used in accordance with such

procedures, shall not be denied legal effect,

validity, or enforceability because such

records are in electronic form.’’

As part of its efforts to comply with

the GPEA and based on Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

guidance (65 FR 25508; May 2, 2000),

the FAA has developed procedures that

would permit the acceptance of

electronic records and electronic

signatures. In addition, the FAA not has

the technical capability to operate in an

electronic environment. Therefore, the

FAA has undertaken a review of

exemptions issued by the agency

allowing the use of electronic signatures

and records to determine if they are

superseded by the provisions of the

GPEA and acceptable under FAA’s

internal procedures.

This notice lists the exemptions that

will be reviewed. Commenters,

including the listed exemptions holders,

should submit their comments and

concerns to the FAA by the close of the

comment period.

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 exemption.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 2,

2000.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Council for Regulations, AGC–

200.

Summary of Existing Exemptions

Docket No.: 25336.

Petitioner: United Airlines, Inc.

(United).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.697(a)(3), (b), (c), and (d) and

121.709)b)(3).

Description of Relief: Permits United

to use computerized signatures to satisfy

the airworthiness release signature

requirements of part 121 in lieu of

physical signatures.

Exemption No. 5121F.

Docket No.: 27674.

Petitioner: International Business

Machines Corporation Flight Operations

(IBM Flight Operations).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a), 43.11(a)(3), 91.407(a)(2),

145.57(a).

Description of Relief: Permits IBM

Flight Operations to use computerized

personal identification codes in lieu of

the physical signatures required to issue

an airworthiness release and/or

approval for return to service for the

aircraft operated by IBM Flight

Operations and the aeronautical

products that IBM Flight Operations

maintains for its repair station

customers.

Exemption No. 6176A.

Docket No.: 28557.

Petitioner: Chromalloy Gas Turbine

Corporation (Chromalloy).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4), 43.11(a)(3), and 145.57(a).

Description of Relief: Permits

Chromalloy and other persons holding

return-to-service authority under the

relevant, respective inspection

procedures manuals (IPM) to use

electronic signatures in lieu of physical

signatures to satisfy the signature

requirements of FAA Form 8130–3,

Airworthiness Approval Tag.

Exemption No. 6513A.

Docket No.: 28445.

Petitioner: Aircraft Braking Systems

Corporation (ABSC).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4) and 43.11(a)(3), appendix B to

part 43, and § 145.57(a).

Description of Relief: Permits ABSC to

use computer-generated electronic

signatures in lieu of physical signatures

to satisfy approval for return-to-service

signature requirements.

Exemption No. 6542B.

Docket No.: 28225.

Petitioner: Northwest Airlines, Inc.

(Northwest).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.709(b)(3).

Description of Relief: Permits

Northwest to use electronic signatures

generated by its SCEPTRE electronic

recordkeeping system in lieu of a

physical signature to satisfy the

airworthiness release or aircraft log

entry signature requirements of

§ 121.709(b)(3).

Exemption No. 6575A.

Docket No.: 28708.

Petitioner: Empire Airlines, Inc.

(Empire).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9 and 121.709(b)(3).

Description of Relief: Permits Empire

to use electronic signatures in lieu of

physical signatures to satisfy

airworthiness release or aircraft log

entry signature requirements of § 43.9

for operations conducted under 14 CFR

part 135 and § 121.709(b)(3) for

operations conducted under part 121.

Exemption No. 6668B.

Docket No.: 29349.

Petitioner: Texas Aero Engine

Services, L.L.C. (TAESL).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4).

Description of Relief: Permits TAESL

to use computerized personal

identification codes in lieu of physical

signatures required to issue

airworthiness releases and approvals for

return to service of aeronautical

products it maintains for its repair

station customers.

Exemption No. 6890.

Docket No.: 29419.

Petitioner: Aviation Component

Service Center (ACSC).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4), § 43.11(a)(3), appendix B to

part 43, and § 145.57(a).

Description of Relief: Permits ACSC to

use computer-generated electronic

signatures in lieu of physical signatures

to satisfy approval for return-to-service

signature requirements.

Exemption No. 6926.

Docket No.: 28634.

Petitioner: Parker Hannifin

Corporation (Parker).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4), § 43.11(a)(3), appendix B to

part 43, and § 145.57(a).

Description of Relief: Permits Parker

to use computer-generated electronic

signatures in lieu of physical signatures

to satisfy the signature requirements of

FAA Form 8130–3, Airworthiness

Approval Tag, when the form is used as

approval for return to service.

Exemption No. 7096.

Docket No.: 29422.

Petitioner: Gulfstream Aerospace

Corporation (Gulfstream).

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4), 43.11(a)(3), appendix B to

part 43, and 145.57(a).

Description of Relief: Permits

Gulfstream qualified technicians and

inspection personnel to use electronic

signatures in lieu of physical signatures

to satisfy approval for return-to-service

signature requirements for the

completion processes for Gulfstream

aircraft.

Exemption No. 7163.

Docket No.: 17145.

Petitioner: United Airlines, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.665 and 121.697(a) and (b).

Description of Relief: Permits United

to use computerized load manifests that

bear the printed name and position of

the person responsible for loading the

aircraft, instead of that person’s

signature.

Exemption No. 2466K.

Docket No.: 28545.

Petitoner: United Airlines, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.135(a)(3).

Description of Relief: Permits United

to use electronic digital technology to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices 59889

document the revision level in lieu of

printing the last revision date on each

page of the manual.

Exemption No. 6612A.

[FR Doc. 00–25694 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Butler County, OH

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement may

be prepared for a proposed

transportation project in Butler County,

Ohio.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark L. Vonder Embse, Urban Programs

Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, 200 North High Street,

Room 328, Columbus, Ohio 43215,

Telephone: (614) 280–6854.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the Ohio

Department of Transportation, will

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for a proposed

improvement in the vicinity of Trenton,

Ohio. The project termini are

approximately US–127, north of the

Village of Seven Mile, and the SR–63/

SR–4 interchange. The study area is

approximately 9 miles in length.

The purpose and need of the project

are to address travel demand and

capacity, access and safety deficiencies.

Alternatives under consideration

include: (1) Taking no action; (2)

Constructing a new highway on new

location; (3) Upgrading existing

facilities. FHWA, ODOT, and local

agencies will be invited to participate in

defining the alternatives to be evaluated

in the EIS, and any significant social,

economic, or environmental issues

related to the alternatives.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies and to private organizations

and citizens who have previously

expressed or are known to have interest

in this proposal. A series of public

meetings will be held in the project

area. In addition, a public hearing will

be held. Public notice will be given of

the time and place of the meetings and

hearing. The draft EIS will be available

for public and agency review and

comment prior to the public hearing.

Scoping activities will be conducted.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

identified and addressed, comments and

suggestions are invited from all

interested parties. Comments or

questions concerning this proposed

action should be sent to the FHWA at

the address provided above.

(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

program.)

Issued on: September 26, 2000.

Mark L. Vonder Embse,

Urban Programs Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, Columbus, Ohio.

[FR Doc. 00–25767 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7965]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1999–

2000 Porsche 911 GT3 Passenger Cars

Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1999–2000

Porsche 911 GT3 passenger cars are

eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This document announces

receipt by the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a

petition for a decision that 1999–2000

Porsche 911 GT3 passenger cars that

were not originally manufactured to

comply with all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards are

eligible for importation into the United

States because (1) they are substantially

similar to vehicles that were originally

manufactured for importation into and

sale in the United States and that were

certified by their manufacturer as

complying with the safety standards,

and (2) they are capable of being readily

altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is November 6, 2000.

ADDRESS: Comments should refer to the

docket number and notice number, and

be submitted to: Docket Management,

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh St., SW,

Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours

are from 9 am to 5 pm].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards shall be refused admission

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Wallace Environmental Testing

Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas

(‘‘WETL’’)(Registered Importer 90–005)

has petitioned NHTSA to decide

whether 1999–2000 Porsche 911 GT3

passenger cars are eligible for

importation into the United States. The

vehicles which WETL believes are

substantially similar are 1999–2000

Porsche 911 passenger cars that were

manufactured for importation into, and

sale in, the United States and certified

by their manufacturer as conforming to

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared non-U.S. certified 1999–2000

Porsche 911 GT3 passenger cars to their

U.S.-certified counterparts, and found

the vehicles to be substantially similar

with respect to compliance with most

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

WETL submitted information with its

petition intended to demonstrate that

non-U.S. certified 1999–2000 Porsche

911 GT3 passenger cars, as originally

manufactured, conform to many Federal

motor vehicle safety standards in the

same manner as their U.S. certified