46382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 

1Note: The title of the organization as 

documented in the 1993 United States Court of 

Appeals case National Parks Conservation 

Association, et al. v Federal Aviation 

Administration, et al. 

2Other parties to the suit included the Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and 

Deborah L. Threedy. 

the statute provides the opportunity to 

petition the Secretary. 

Defining community as a 

jurisdictional authority or political 

subdivision is also consistent with the 

definition of community in Order 

5050.4B, ¶1203(b)(1). 

Accordingly, only a political 

subdivision of a state that enjoys general 

jurisdiction, or a Tribal government 

meets the definition of community in 

this context. Political subdivisions of a 

state that have a specific, substantive 

authority, such as water districts or 

school districts, do not adequately 

represent the interests of the community 

at large. They are not required to 

balance the interests of the whole 

community on a wide range of issues. 

Rather, they seek to promote their 

specific substantive interest. 

Additionally, water districts or school 

districts would not normally be invited 

to sit on an airport management board. 

Thus, only a political subdivision of a 

state which enjoys general jurisdiction 

is a community entitled to file a petition 

under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

Finally, under the statute, a 

community is only eligible to petition 

under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) if the 

project is located in the community. If 

land is disturbed in the community, 

then the project is considered to be 

located in that community. The courts 

have also provided instruction on when 

a project is located in a community. In 

City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F. 3d 448 

(8th Cir. 2000), the court determined 

that a community in which there was no 

construction and no significant noise 

impact could not challenge the failure to 

notify it that it could petition the 

Secretary. Thus, outside the 

construction context, a project may be 

located in a community only if the 

project will have a significant impact on 

the community. For example, where a 

project will cause a significant noise 

impact on a community, the project is 

located in that community. If the project 

does not create a significant impact in 

the community, the community will 

have no right to petition the Secretary. 

E. Other Considerations 

There are currently ten states that 

participate in the FAA’s State Block 

Grant Program (SBGP). Under the 

program, the State agency (usually the 

aviation division of the state 

Department of Transportation) assumes 

responsibility for administering AIP 

grants and if applicable, discretionary 

grants for non-primary airports. See 49 

U.S.C. Section 47128. As part of the 

responsibility, the state assumes various 

responsibilities for the FAA including 

reviewing and approving proposed 

changes to the Airport Layout Plan 

(ALP) and compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The FAA interprets 49 U.S.C. Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) as not being 

applicable to a project approved and 

administered as part of a state block 

grant. The plain language of this 

statutory provision states that this 

Section is triggered when a proponent 

submits a project grant application to 

the FAA. In the case of the SBGP, no 

such request is made as the funds are 

given to the states as a block and the 

state assumes responsibility for 

administering those funds. Participants 

in the SBGP are required to engage 

communities according to FAA 

guidance and to circulate the draft EA 

if warranted. Some who have sought to 

use this provision have argued that it 

should apply to State Block Grant 

projects. The FAA invites comments on 

this interpretation. 

F. Agency Response 

The FAA will provide a written 

response to a petition to the Secretary. 

The FAA may respond by outlining the 

issues raised in the petition and 

providing its responses either within the 

environmental record of decision, or it 

may elect to respond in a separate 

document. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), 14 

CFR part 1. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29, 

2015. 

Elliott Black, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming APP–001. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19144 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Cal Black 

Memorial Airport, Halls Crossing 

Replacement Airport 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

announces the availability of the Record 

of Decision for the Cal Black Memorial 

Airport, replacement airport for the 

Halls Crossing Airport. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be 

viewed during regular business hours at 

the following locations: 

1. Federal Aviation Administration 

Airports Division, Suite 315, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. 

2. Federal Aviation Administration, 

Airports District Office, Suite 224, 

26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 

80249. 

3. San Juan County Courthouse, 

County Executive Office, 117 S. Main, 

Monticello, Utah 84535. 

The ROD will also be available on the 

following Web site: http://

halls.crossing.airportnetwork.com/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janell Barrilleaux, Environmental 

Program Manager, Federal Aviation 

Administration Airports Division, 

Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. Mrs. 

Barrilleaux may be contacted during 

business hours at (425) 227–2611 

(phone), (425) 227–1600 (fax), or via 

email at Janell.Barrilleaux@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Halls 

Crossing replacement airport was 

originally proposed in 1966 due to the 

inadequacy of the existing Halls 

Crossing airstrip. After completion of 

numerous planning studies, the Federal 

Aviation Administration completed an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

(June, 1990) with the cooperation of the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A 

Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in 

August 1990 approving the 

development of what is now named the 

Cal Black Memorial Airport. 

Concurrently, the BLM approved an 

amendment of a land plan which 

allowed the conveyance of land to San 

Juan County for the construction of the 

new airport. 

In 1990, the National Parks 

Conservation Association (NPCA),1 et 

al.2 brought suit concerning the 

adequacy of the 1990 Final EIS and the 

adequacy of the BLM plan amendment 

and land transfer process. In its July 7, 

1993 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit concluded that 

‘‘the action of FAA approving the 

project based on a finding of ‘no 

significant impact’ and ‘no significant 

adverse impact’ [was] arbitrary and 

capricious.’’ The court proceeding 

stated: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46383 

3Note: In 1994, the provisions of the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982 were codified in 

U.S. Code Title 49, chapter 471, subchapter I. 

4BLM addressed its requirements through its 

revisions to their Resource Management Plan in 

2008. Bureau of Land Management Monticello Field 

Office, Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan (November 2008). 

We therefore REVERSE the BLM’s plan 

amendment and the transfer of land. We 

REMAND for further proceedings to 

determine whether the land should be 

retained under BLM control and management 

or reconveyed to San Juan County under a 

newly proposed land use plan amendment. 

In the case of the FAA, the airport has 

already been built. This does not mean that 

a remand would be meaningless, however. 

On remand, the FAA should re-analyze the 

impact of the airport under section 4(f) and 

section 2208.3 The FAA may determine that 

it must make use of studies not utilized in 

the current FEIS. If a ‘‘significant’’ impact is 

found, section 4(f) and section 2208 require 

that all reasonable steps be taken to mitigate 

the damage or adverse impact. We therefore 

REVERSE the FAA’s determination of no 

significant impact and REMAND to the FAA 

for further proceedings consistent with this 

decision. 

In response to the court remand, FAA, in 

cooperation with BLM and NPS prepared a 

Supplemental EIS (SEIS).4 The Draft SEIS for 

the Cal Black Memorial Airport (Replacement 

Airport for Halls Crossing Airport) was 

published on December 12, 2014. The 45-day 

comment period included an opportunity to 

request a public hearing; however, no 

responses were received requesting a hearing. 

The following parties submitted comments to 

the FAA on the Draft SEIS during the 

comment period: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, BLM, and the NPCA. An errata sheet 

was drafted to identify changes that were 

made to the Draft SEIS in response to 

comments received. Additionally, an 

appendix was added (Appendix J) to 

document each comment received, and 

FAA’s response to each comment. These 

additional documents, in combination with a 

CD containing the Draft SEIS, constitute the 

Final SEIS for the Replacement Airport at 

Halls Crossing. The Final SEIS for the Cal 

Black Memorial Airport (replacement airport 

for the Halls Crossing Airport) was published 

on May 8, 2015. 

The SEIS described potential 

environmental consequences that could 

result from the continued operation of 

the Cal Black Memorial Airport to 

resources located within the Project 

Area. Direct effects of the new airport 

(its construction) as well as indirect 

effects (airport operations) were 

identified in the 1990 FEIS. The SEIS 

provided further evaluation of actual 

and potential aircraft noise impacts, as 

well as Section 4(f) impacts and 

cumulative impacts. Evaluation of noise 

impacts focused exclusively on the 

effect of aircraft noise on GCNRA and 

surrounding lands. Chapter III, 

Environmental Consequences, presents 

the analysis for noise impacts, Section 

4(f) impacts, and Cumulative Effects 

resulting from the operation of the Cal 

Black Memorial Airport. 

The FAA has determined, based on 

the noise analysis conducted for the 

SEIS that as there are no significant 

impacts related to the continued 

operation of the Cal Black Memorial 

Airport, there is no need for any 

mitigation measures under either 

Section 4(f) or Section 2208. 

In addition, the FAA has confirmed 

that the ROD for the 1990 EIS included 

the FAA determinations made for the 

project based upon evidence set forth in 

the FEIS, public input, and the 

supporting administrative record. These 

determinations are not changed by any 

new information developed for this 

SEIS. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, July 28, 

2015. 

Stanley C. Allison, 

Acting Division Manager, Airports Division, 

Northwest Mountain Region. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19145 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To 

Release Property at the Morgantown 

Municipal Airport, Morgantown, WV 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of request to release 

airport property. 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and 

invite public comment on the land 

release at the Morgantown Municipal 

Airport, Morgantown, WV, under the 

provision 49 U.S.C. 47125(a). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this 

application may be mailed or delivered 

to the following address: Glen Kelly, 

Assistant City Manager, City of 

Morgantown, Sponsor for Morgantown 

Municipal Airport, 389 Spruce Street, 

Morgantown, WV, 304–291–7461, and 

at the FAA Beckley Airports Field 

Office: Matthew DiGiulian, Manager, 

Beckley Airports Field Office, 176 

Airport Circle, Room 101, Beaver, WV 

25813, (304) 252–6216. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Connie Boley-Lilly, Airports Program 

Specialist, Beckley Airports Field 

Office, location listed above. 

The request to release airport property 

may be reviewed in person at this same 

location. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

invites public comment on the request 

to release property at the Morgantown 

Municipal Airport under the provisions 

of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On 

July 21, 2015, the FAA determined that 

the request to release property at the 

Morgantown Municipal Airport (MGW), 

WV, submitted by the City of 

Morgantown, Sponsor for the 

Morgantown Municipal Airport, met the 

procedural requirements. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the request: 

The Morgantown Municipal Airport is 

proposing the release of approximately 

95.70 acres of fee simple release to 

permit the transfer of such Property to 

the Monongalia County Development 

Authority (‘‘MCDA’’). Thereafter, 

‘‘MCDA’’ will construct, or cause the 

construction, and operate, or cause the 

operation, of a Business Park on the 

Property. The Property to which this 

request relates is not a viral part of, or 

necessary for, the Sponsor’s operation 

and development of Morgantown 

Municipal Airport (MGW). Therefore, it 

has been determined by the Sponsor 

that the most productive use of the 

Property is commercial development 

subsequent to its transfer to the 

‘‘MCDA’’. The development of the 

Property demonstrates that significant 

private investment can occur at MGW 

and shall serve to establish quality 

standards for future investments. The 

release and transfer of this property will 

allow the Sponsor to develop the 

roadway and utilities which will benefit 

this property, the hangar site, and the 

landside development site. This release 

will enhance the development of private 

aviation and commercial development 

of the east side of the airport. 

Issued in Beckley, West Virginia, on July 

16, 2015. 

Matthew P. DiGiulian, 

Manager, Beckley Airport Field Office, 

Eastern Region. 

Any person may inspect the request 

by appointment at the FAA office 

address listed above. Interested persons 

are invited to comment on the proposed 

lease. All comments will be considered 

by the FAA to the extent practicable. 

Issued in Beaver, West Virginia, July 21, 

2015. 

Matthew DiGiulian, 

Manager, Beckley Airports Field Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18596 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES