Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27613

continuations, three deletions, and three

additions to the approved 1990 noise

compatibility program; and seven noise

mitigation measures, which consist of

four continuations, one completion, and

two additions to the 1990 noise

compatibility program. Phase II of the

submitted program contained two new

noise abatement measures and two new

noise mitigation measures. The FAA

completed its review and determined

that the procedural and substantive

requirements of the Act and Part 150

have been satisfied. The overall

program, therefore, was approved by the

Administrator, effective March 30, 1998.

Of the overall 21 specific measures

requiring federal action, 19 were

approved without exception. Two land

use measures were partially approved

subject to the recommendation related

to the introduction of noncompatible

residential development is not meeting

Part 150 criteria. The approved

measures included such items as: the

continuation of periodic noise

monitoring, provision for monthly

reports on late night (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.)

runway utilization, variance from noise

compatibility program assumptions to

the Tower and frequent nighttime users;

designation of runways 18R and 18L as

the preferred for takeoffs by turbojet and

large four-engine prop aircraft between

11 p.m. and 7 a.m. when runway 23 or

runway 5 cannot be used for reasons of

wind, weather, operational necessity, or

required runway length; designation of

locations and procedures for engine

runups; modification to current

operating procedures for turbojet and

large four-engine prop aircraft departing

runways 36R and 36L to initiate turns

at 2.5 and 2.6 DME north of the CLT

VOR/DME respectively; continuation of

the 1990 noise compatibility program

land use planning which recommends

amending local land use planning

policies to reduce the development of

noncompatible land uses within the

airport environs; continuation of the

1990 noise compatibility program land

use measure to rezone undeveloped

property to airport compatible land use

and limit the density of residential

development permitted within noise

contours; dedication of avigation

easement as a condition of approval for

the development of property located in

the airport environs; pursuit of the

establishment of an airport overlay

district that corresponds to the airport

environs; pursuit of an amendment of

the state building code to authorize the

City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg

County to raise the minimum building

standards (noise level reduction) for

new residential construction in the

airport overlay district; development of

the full disclosure of property location

within the airport environs for potential

buyers; continuation of the public

information program that is a part of the

approval 1990 noise compatibility

program; continuation of the sound

insulation program for sensitive public

buildings used for instruction (schools)

and assembly (churches) within the 65

DNL contour; continuation of the sound

insulation program of residential

property within the 65 DNL contour;

within the 70–75 DNL noise contour,

offers of purchase assurance, sound

insulation of residences, purchase of

aviation easements or acquisition of

noncompatibility property; acquisition

of mobile homes located within the 70

DNL noise contour; exercise of the

option to purchase avigation easement,

sound insulate or acquire homes within

the 65 DNL noise contours where sound

insulation is infeasible or not cost

effective; establishment of departure

turn for third parallel runway 17;

establishment of departure turn for the

third parallel runway 35; insulation of

eligible dwellings within the 2001 noise

compatibility program/noise exposure

map 65 DNL noise contour, and

acquisition of mobile homes within the

65 DNL noise contour of the 2001 noise

compatibility program/noise exposure

map. These determinations are set forth

in detail in the Record of Approval

endorsed by the Administrator on

March 30, 1998.00000

The FAA also has completed its

review of the revised noise exposure

maps and related descriptions

submitted by the City of Charlotte. The

specific maps under consideration are

dated February 27, 1998, in the

submission. The FAA has determined

that these maps for the Charlotte/

Douglas International Airport are in

compliance with applicable

requirements. This determination is

effective April 28, 1998. FAA’s

determination on an airport operator’s

noise exposure maps is limited to a

finding that the maps were developed in

accordance with the procedures

contained in Appendix A of FAR Part

150. Such determination does not

constitute approval of the data,

information or plans.

If questions arise concerning the

precise relationship of specific

properties to noise exposure contours

depicted on a noise exposure map

submitted under Section 103 of the Act,

it should be noted that the FAA is not

involved in any way in determining the

relative locations of specific properties

with regard to the depicted noise

contours, or in interpreting the noise

exposure maps to resolve questions

concerning, for example, which

properties should be covered by the

provisions of Section 107 of the Act.

These functions are inseparable from

the ultimate land use control and

planning responsibilities of local

government. These local responsibilities

are not changed in any way under Part

150 or through FAA’s review of noise

exposure maps. Therefore, the

responsibility for the detailed

overlaying of noise exposure contours

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.

Copies of the noise exposure maps

and of the FAA’s evaluation of the

maps, and copies of the record of

approval and other evaluation materials

and documents which comprised the

submittal to the FAA are available for

examination at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Atlanta Airports District Office,

Campus Building, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, Suite 2–260, College Park,

Georgia 30337–2747.

Mr. T.J. Orr, Aviation Director,

Charlotte/Douglas International

Airport, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Questions on either of these FAA

determinations may be directed to the

individual named above under the

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on April 28,

1998.

Dell T. Jernigan,

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office,

ATL–ADO.

[FR Doc. 98–13264 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–98–9]

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,
27614 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemptions (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 docket

number involved and must be received

on or before June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. lllll,

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: 9–NPRM–CMTS@faa.dot.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed in 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, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tawana Matthews (202) 267–9783 or

Terry Stubblefield (202) 267–7624,

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, DC, on May 13,

1998.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 29168.

Petitioner: Continental Airlines, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.417(c)(2)(i)(A).

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit Continental and Continental

Micronesia to use video-based

differences training in lieu of physical

hands-on training to accomplish the

training and qualification of

crewmembers on the automatic Type III

emergency overwing exits installed on

Boeing 737–600, –700, and –800

airplanes, when the crewmembers

previously have been trained and

qualified on Type III emergency

overwing exits installed on other

versions of Boeing 737 aircraft.

Docket No.: 29166.

Petitioner: Roger Aviation Company.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

142.15(d).

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit Roger Aviation Company to

conduct simulator training under part

142 with a Frasca 242 flight training

device (FTD) without that FTD meeting

the requirements of an advanced FTD as

defined in § 142.3.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 27307.

Petitioner: Comair 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 121.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Comair to

combine recurrent flight and ground

training and proficiency checks for its

pilots in a single annual training and

proficiency evaluation program.

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

5734C.

Docket No.: 29173.

Petitioner: Captain Joe R. McCabe.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.383(c).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

act as a pilot in operations conducted

under part 121 after reaching his 60th

birthday.

Denial, April 20, 1998, Exemption No.

6757.

Docket No.: 28174.

Petitioner: Air Carriage.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

operate certain aircraft under the

provisions of part 135 without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed on

those aircraft.

Grant, April 20, 1998, Exemption No.

6108A.

Docket No.: 28597.

Petitioner: U.S. Helicopters, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit U.S. Helicopters

to operate certain aircraft under the

provisions of part 135 without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed on

those aircraft. In addition, in your letter,

you include a revised list of aircraft to

be covered by the extension.

Grant, April 20, 1998, Exemption No.

6452A.

Docket No.: 29167.

Petitioner: Captain David F. Specht.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.383(c).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

act as a pilot in operations conducted

under part 121 after reaching his 60th

birthday.

Denial, April 20, 1998, Exemption No.

6755.

Docket No.: 29171.

Petitioner: Mr. Thomas Bentley.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.383(c).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

act as a pilot in operations conducted

under part 121 after reaching your 60th

birthday.

Denial, April 20, 1998, Exemption No.

6756.

Docket No.: 25550.

Petitioner: Department of the Army.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.169(a)(2) and (c).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the U.S. Army to

file instrument flight rules flight plans

in accordance with the regulations

prescribed by the U.S. Army.

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6528A.

Docket No.: 27785.

Petitioner: Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Chevron to

operate without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)

transponder installed on its aircraft

operating under the provisions of part

135.

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

5948B.

Docket No.: 28206.

Petitioner: Silver Moon Aviation.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

operate certain aircraft without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed.

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6122A.

Docket No.: 28307.

Petitioner: Bombardier Business

Aircraft.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.337(a)(2), and (3), and (b)(2); and

135.339(b) and (c) and appendix H to

part 121.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit certain

instructors employed by Bombardier

and listed in a part 135 certificate

holder’s approved training program to

act as simulator instructors for that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27615

certificate holder under part 135

without having received ground and

flight training in accordance with that

certificate holder’s training program

approved under subpart H of part 135.

That exemption also permits simulator

instructors employed by Bombardier

and listed in a certificate holder’s

approved training program to serve in

advanced simulators without being

employed by the certificate holder for 1

year, provided the instructors receive

applicable training in accordance with

the provisions of this exemption.

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6446A.

Docket No.: 29176.

Petitioner: Col. Marcus F. Cooper, Jr.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.383(c).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

act as a pilot in operations conducted

under part 121 after reaching his 60th

birthday.

Denial, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6759.

Docket No.: 28499.

Petitioner: Sky Helicopters, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Sky Helicopters

to operate certain aircraft under the

provisions of part 135 without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed on

those aircraft

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6430A.

Docket No.: 26017.

Petitioner: ERA Aviation, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

43.3(a) and 135.443(b)(3).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit ERA to allow

appropriately trained and certificated

pilots employer by ERA to install and

remove an approved emergency rescue

hoist on its Aerospatiale AS332 Super

Puma helicopters.

Disposition, Date, Exemption No.

6760.

Docket No.:

Petitioner:

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit.

Disposition, Date, Exemption No.

[FR Doc. 98–13267 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

98–01–C–00–MHK To Impose and Use

the Revenue From a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at Manhattan Regional

Airport, Manhattan, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC at Manhattan

Regional Airport under the provisions of

the Aviation Safety and Capacity

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Central Region,

Airports Division, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, MO 64106.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Ken Black,

Airport Manager, Manhattan Regional

Airport, at the following address: City of

Manhattan, Kansas, Manhattan Regional

Airport, 5500 Fort Riley Blvd., Suite

120, Manhattan Kansas 66502–9721.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the City of

Manhattan, Manhattan Regional Airport,

under section 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorna Sandridge, PFC Program Manager,

FAA, Central Region, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 426–4730.

The application may be reviewed in

person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invite public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at the

Manhattan Regional Airport under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On May 1, 1998, the FAA determined

that the application to impose and use

the revenue from a PFC submitted by

the City of Manhattan, Kansas, was

substantially complete within the

requirements of section 158.25 of Part

158. The FAA will approve or

disapprove the application, in whole or

in part, no later than July 31, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: June,

1998.

Proposed charge expiration date:

January, 2004.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$401,978.

Brief description of proposed

project(s): Construction of Access Road

(Phase 1); Installation of Part 139

Signage; Construct Terminal Building;

Terminal Building Site Development;

Construct Service Road; Update the

Airport Master Plan; Rehabilitate Apron.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Manhattan

Regional Airport. Issued in Kansas City,

Missouri on May 1, 1998.

George A. Hendon,

Manager, Airports Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 98–13266 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Impose and Use the Revenue From

a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at

Outagamie County Airport, Appleton,

WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC at Outagamie

County Airport under the provisions of

the Aviation Safety and Capacity

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Minneapolis Airports District