Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices 17903

onto the map depicting properties on

the surface rests exclusively with the

airport operator which submitted those

maps, or with those public agencies and

planning agencies with which

consultation is required under Section

103 of the Act. The FAA has relied on

the certification by the airport operator,

under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150,

that the statutorily required consultation

has been accomplished.

The FAA has formally received the

revised noise compatibility program

1996 for Naples Municipal Airport, also

effective on April 2, 1997. Preliminary

review of the submitted material

indicates that it conforms to the

requirements for the submittal of noise

compatibility programs, but that further

review will be necessary prior to

approval or disapproval of the revised

program. The formal review period,

limited by law to a maximum of 180

days, will be completed on or before

September 29, 1997.

The FAA’s detailed evaluation will be

conducted under the provisions of 14

CFR Part 150, Section 150.33. The

primary considerations in the

evaluation process are whether the

proposed measures may reduce the level

of aviation safety, create an undue

burden on interstate or foreign

commerce, or be reasonably consistent

with obtaining the goal of reducing

existing noncompatible land uses and

preventing the introduction of

additional noncompatible land uses.

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed revised

program with specific reference to these

factors. All comments, other than those

properly addressed to local land use

authorities, will be considered by the

FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of

the revised noise exposure maps, the

FAA’s evaluation of the maps, and the

proposed revised noise compatibility

program are available for examination at

the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Orlando Airports District Office, 5950

Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,

Orlando, Florida 32822–5024, and

Naples Airport Authority, 160 Aviation

Drive North, Naples, Florida 34104

Questions may be directed to the

individual named above under the

heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Orlando, Florida, April 2, 1997.

Charles E. Blair,

Manager, Orlando Airport District Office.

[FR Doc. 97–9418 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement;

Tuscaloosa County, AL

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 will be

prepared for a proposed highway project

in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Joe D. Wilkerson, Division

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration, 500 Eastern Boulevard,

Suite 200, Montgomery, Alabama 36117,

Telephone: (334) 223–7370, or Mr.

Jimmy Butts, Director, State of Alabama

Department of Transportation, 1409

Coliseum Boulevard, Montgomery,

Alabama 36130, Telephone (334) 242–

6311.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the State of

Alabama Department of Transportation,

will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for a proposed bypass of the

cities of Northport and Tuscaloosa,

approximately 29 km (18 miles) in

length, beginning at U.S. Highway 82

west and extending north and east

around Northport and Tuscaloosa. The

proposed limited access multi-lane

facility provides a much-needed new

crossing of the Black Warrior River that

runs generally east and west through the

metropolitan area. There are presently

two routes serving the Northport/

Tuscaloosa area that cross the Black

Warrior River. Both of these facilities

have become severely congested

creating the need for additional river

crossings. The area has experienced

steady growth, and an additional

highway corridor will better serve this

rapidly-developing area as well as

provide through traffic with an option to

bypass the existing overburdened

highway network.

A Notice of Intent was previously

published on September 17, 1992, to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for this project. Early

coordination letters describing the

proposed action and soliciting

comments were sent to appropriate

Federal, State, local agencies, and to

private organizations and citizens who

had expressed or were known to have

an interest in the proposal. A scoping

meeting, four public involvement

meetings, and public hearings were held

to describe the project and solicit

public/private input. After these

meetings, hearings, and consideration of

comments, the location of a river

crossing was selected and a FONSI

approved on January 14, 1994, for a

separate project within the overall limits

of the bypass for construction of a

bridge across the river. Funding to begin

bridge construction was provided in the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991.

A Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (FHWA–AL–EIS–94–01–D)

for the bypass, which also included

discussion of the river crossing project,

was approved on June 1, 1994. After

circulation of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement and holding a corridor

public hearing, comments and

objections to the alignment north of the

river were raised by residents of a

subdivision near the proposed location.

In order to ensure that there was full

public knowledge of the proposed

project and to clarify apparent

confusion by some citizens, an

additional Notice of Intent was

published in 1996 to prepare a

Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for the entire route.

The Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement was prepared on the

entire route and subsequently approved

on June 10, 1996. This document was

circulated, and a corridor public hearing

was held. Once again, objections were

raised, and many of the comments

concerning the outdated data indicated

the need to prepare a new

Environmental Impact Statement, based

on current issues and conditions rather

than trying to utilize information from

the previous Environmental Impact

Statement and Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement.

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 an

interest in this proposal. A scoping

meeting and public involvement

meeting will be held in the project area.

In addition, a public hearing will be

held. Public notices will be given of the

time and place of meetings and hearing.

The Draft Environmental Impact

Statement will be available for public

and agency review and comment prior

to the public hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the Environmental

Impact Statement should be directed to
17904 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices

1The stock of these eight motor passenger carriers

was placed in separate, independent voting trusts

with different trustees to avoid any unlawful

control.

2See Notre Capital Ventures II, LLC and Coach

USA, Inc.—Control Exemption—Arrow Stage Lines,

Inc.; Cape Transit Corp.; Community Coach, Inc.;

Community Transit Lines, Inc.; Grosvenor Bus

Lines, Inc.; H.A.M.L. Corp.; Leisure Time Tours;

Suburban Management Corp.; Suburban Trails,

Inc.; and Suburban Transit Corp., STB Finance

Docket No. 32876 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served May 3,

1996).

3See Coach USA, Inc.—Control Exemption—

American Sightseeing Tours, Inc.; California

Charters, Inc.; Texas Bus Lines, Inc.; Gulf Coast

Transportation, Inc.; and K–T Contract Services,

Inc., STB Finance Docket No. 33073 (STB served

Nov. 8, 1996).

4Coach USA, Inc.—Control Exemption—

Progressive Transportation, Inc.; Powder River

Transportation Services, Inc.; Worthen Van Service,

Inc.; and PCSTC, Inc., STB Finance Docket No.

33343 (STB served and published Mar. 12, 1997)

(62 FR 11518).

the FHWA at the address provided

above.

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction.

Issued on: April 1, 1997.

Joe D. Wilkerson,

Division Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration, Montgomery, Alabama.

[FR Doc. 97–9304 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33377]

Coach USA, Inc.—Control Exemption—

Airport Bus of Bakersfield; Antelope

Valley Bus, Inc., Desert Stage Lines,

Inc.; Bayou City Coaches, Inc.;

Kerrville Bus Company, Inc.; Red &

Tan Charter, Inc.; Red & Tan Tours,

Inc.; and Rockland Coaches, Inc.

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition for

exemption.

SUMMARY: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach), a

noncarrier that controls 15 motor

passenger carriers, seeks to be

exempted, under 49 U.S.C. 13541, from

the prior approval requirements of 49

U.S.C. 14303(a)(5), to acquire control of

eight other motor passenger carriers.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May

1, 1997. Petitioner may file a reply by

May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of comments referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 33377 to: Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit,

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20423–

0001. Also send one copy of comments

to petitioner’s representatives: Betty Jo

Christian and David H. Coburn, Steptoe

& Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600 [TDD

for the hearing impaired: (202) 565–

1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coach

seeks an exemption to acquire stock

control over eight motor passenger

carriers that operate in interstate and

intrastate commerce: Airport Bus of

Bakersfield (MC–163191) (primarily

charter operations and regular-route

service in California and Nevada);

Antelope Valley Bus, Inc. (MC–125057)

(primarily charter operations and

regular-route service in California and

Nevada); Desert Stage Lines, Inc. (MC–

140919) (primarily charter operations in

California); Bayou City Coaches, Inc.

(MC–245246) (primarily charter

operations in Texas and New Mexico);

Kerrville Bus Company, Inc. (MC–

27530) (primarily charter operations and

regular-route service in Texas,

Louisiana, and Arkansas); Red & Tan

Charter, Inc. (MC–204842) (holds

authority to operate charter and special

services, but does not presently conduct

any bus operations); Red & Tan Tours,

Inc. (MC–162174) (primarily charter

operations and regular-route service in

New York and New Jersey); and

Rockland Coaches, Inc. (MC–29890)

(primarily charter operations and

regular-route service in New York and

New Jersey).1 Antelope Valley Bus, Inc.

operates Airport Bus of Bakersfield as a

division and wholly owns Desert Stage

Lines, Inc. Red & Tan Tours, Inc., Red

& Tan Charter, Inc., and Rockland

Coaches, Inc. are also under common

control. Bayou City Coaches, Inc. and

Kerrville Bus Company, Inc. are

controlled by different members of the

same family. Coach states that each of

the eight carriers accounts for a

relatively small market share and

operates regionally in diverse markets

across the United States.

Coach indicates that it currently

controls the nation’s second largest

group of motor passenger carriers,

having acquired 10 carriers in May

1996,2 and five more in November

1996.3 In STB Finance Docket No.

33343, which is pending before the

Board, petitioner is seeking to acquire

control of four other motor passenger

carriers.4

Petitioner asserts that there is little

competition, and no significant overlap

in operations, among the 15 carriers it

now controls and the carriers it seeks to

control in this proceeding and in STB

Finance Docket No. 33343. Coach

acknowledges that there is some overlap

in service but states that the proposed

acquisitions will have no meaningful

effect on the continued availability of

competitive transportation.

Following the acquisition of control

by Coach, the eight carriers will

continue to operate in their respective

markets, each under its own name and

each in the same basic manner as before.

Coach claims that improved service at

lower costs will result because of the

coordination of functions, centralized

management, financial support,

rationalization of resources, and

economies of scale that are anticipated

from the common control. Coach also

states that all collective bargaining

agreements will be honored, that

employee benefits will improve, and

that no change in management

personnel is planned. Additional

information may be obtained from

petitioner’s representatives.

Coach also requests expedited action

by the Board on its petition for

exemption filed in this proceeding and

in STB Finance Docket No. 33343.

Coach explains that there will be a

stock, and possibly a debt, offering in

May 1997 and asks that the Board issue

a decision in both proceedings by May

15, 1997.

A copy of this notice will be served

on the Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.

Decided: April 4, 1997.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9363 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P