27544 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Notices

possible azimuths for GSO launches);

(3) launching along a range of azimuths

between 82.6° and 97.4° but avoiding

specific azimuths within this range that

would overfly any nation’s National

Park or National Reserve. Two

alternatives were carried forward and

considered in detail in the Draft EA

including: (1) Launching along a range

of azimuths between 82.6° and 97.4° but

avoiding any azimuth that would

overfly any of the Oceanic Islands

(Galapagos Islands, Cocos Island, and

Malpelo Island) and (2) launching along

a range of azimuths between 82.6° and

97.4° but avoiding any azimuths that

overfly the Galapagos Islands. The No

Action Alternative was also considered

in detail. Under the No Action

alternative, FAA would not issue a LOL

to SLLP. SLLP would continue to

prepare and submit launch-specific

applications for individual licenses to

launch up to six satellites per year,

including appropriate environmental

analyses and documentation to support

launch-specific applications when

required.

Potential impacts of the license

applicant’s proposed action were

analyzed in the Draft EA. Potential

environmental impacts of successful

launch vehicle flight include impacts to

the geology, oceanography, atmospheric

processes, and biological communities

within the overflight and stage and

fairing deposition areas. Additionally,

possible impacts to commercial

activities in these areas were analyzed.

Potential environmental impacts of

three failed mission scenarios were also

considered including: (1) Possible

failure at the launch platform, (2)

possible failure during Stage I and Stage

II flight over open ocean, and (3)

possible failure during Upper Stage

flight over the ocean, Oceanic Islands,

or South America. Finally, potential

environmental impacts associated with

the avoidance of the Oceanic Islands

alternative and the avoidance of the

Galapagos Islands alternative were also

analyzed. The impacts of the No Action

Alternative would be the same as those

addressed in the FAA’s Final

Environmental Assessment for the Sea

Launch Project (February 11, 1999).

Potential cumulative impacts of each

phase of the launch operation associated

with eight SLLP launches per year for

five years, or a maximum of 40

proposed launches, over the broader

range of azimuths of the license

applicant’s proposed action are also

addressed in the Draft EA.

Based on the Draft EA, FAA will

determine whether there are potentially

significant impacts requiring

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) or whether to issue a

Final EA and Environmental Finding

Document finding no significant impact.

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Herb Bachner,

Manager, Space Systems Development

Division.

[FR Doc. 01–12390 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–2001–38]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Dispositions of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of dispositions of prior

petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this

notice contains a summary of

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received. 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 petitioner or its final

disposition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Forest Rawls (202) 267–8033, Sandy

Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, or

Vanessa Wilkins (202) 267–8029, Office

of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to

14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.

Issued in Washington, DC., on May 14,

2001.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Disposition of Petitions

Docket No.: 29725.

Petitioner: Federal Express Corporation.

Section 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.417(c)(2)(i).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To provide FedEx relief from the requirement

that each flight crewmember perform handson emergency drills and operate certain

emergency equipment every 24 months

during recurrent training.

Denial, 04/30/2001, Exemption No. 7521.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–9228.

Petitioner: Bridger Aviation Services, Inc.

Section 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(2)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To permit Bridger to operate certain aircraft

under part 135 without a TSO–C112 (Mode

S) transponder installed in the aircraft.

Grant, 04/26/2001, Exemption No. 7519.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–8745.

Petitioner: Caribou Air Service.

Section 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To permit Caribou to operate certain aircraft

under part 135 without a TSO–C112 (Mode

S) transponder installed in the aircraft.

Grant, 04/26/2001, Exemption No. 7518.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–8743.

Petitioner: Beaver Air Taxi, LLC.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To permit Beaver Air to operate certain

aircraft under part 135 without a TSO–C112

(Mode S) transponder installed in the

aircraft.

Grant, 04/26/2001, Exemption No. 7517.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–9043.

Petitioner: Horizon Air Industries, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.344(a)(14), (a)(29), (a)(33), (a)(40), (a)(44),

and (a)(54).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To permit Horizon and all similarly situated

air carriers to operate the Bombardier CL–

600–2C10 airplane without recording the

parameters listed in § 121.344(a)(14), (a)(29),

(a)(33), (a)(40), (a)(44), and (a)(54) within the

ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording

intervals specified in appendix M to part 121.

Denial, 04/27/2001, Exemption No. 7520.

Docket No.: 28855.

Petitioner: Offshore Logistics, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

135.152(a).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To amend Exemption No. 6714, as amended,

which permits Offshore to operate certain

helicopters under part 135 without an

approved digital flight data recorder installed

on each helicopter. By (1) changing the name

of the exemption holder from Offshore

Logistics, Inc., to Air Logistics, L.L.C., and (2)

updating the list of helicopters covered by

the exemption.

Grant, 05/04/2001, Exemption No. 6714C.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–8738.

Petitioner: DHL Airways, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

121.344(b)(3).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To allow DHL to operate two Airbus 300B4–

200 series airplanes (Registration Nos.

N367DH and N366DH) without installing in

each the airplane the required digital flight

data recorder.

Grant, 05/04/2001, Exemption No. 7522.

Docket No.: FAA–2000–8423.

Petitioner: Alaska Flying Network.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

135.251, 135.255, 135.353, and appendixes I

and J of part 121.

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:

To permit AFN to conduct no more than four

local sightseeing flights at an airport in the

vicinity of Kenai, AK, as part of a raffle to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Notices 27545

1An unredacted version of the trackage rights

agreement between CMGN and CSXT, as required

by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), was concurrently filed

with the notice of exemption under seal along with

a motion for a protective order. A protective order

was served on May 2, 2001.

2CMGN’s use of the trackage rights would make

its rail operations more efficient. It would further

allow CMGN to access its shippers east of the Hoyt

Diamond by having a more direct route between the

Saginaw Yard and the Hoyt Diamond after it

interchanges with CSXT.

3By letter dated April 11, 2001, Self-Serve

Lumber, the only shipper on the line fully supports

the proposed relocation and incidental

abandonment by CMGN.

1Ohio Central Railroad, Inc., Ohio Southern

Railroad, Inc., Youngstown Belt Railroad, Inc.,

Warren & Trumbull Railroad, Ohio & Pennsylvania

Railroad, Youngstown & Austintown Railroad,

Pittsburgh & Ohio Central Railroad, and Columbus

& Ohio River Railroad Company.

2LTV, MVRC’s largest shipper, is presently

engaged in voluntary reorganization proceedings

under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. LTV

has sought and secured conditional approval from

the Bankruptcy Court to sell MVRC and other noncore assets as promptly as practicable in order to

streamline LTV’s operations and emerge a stronger

and more efficient organization by selling a number

of assets that are either unproductive or

nonessential.

raise funds for local charities, at a date and

time to be determined by you and recipient(s)

of the flight, for compensation or hire,

without complying with certain anti-drug

and alcohol misuse prevention requirements

of part 135.

Grant, 04/27/2001, Exemption No. 7274A.

[FR Doc. 01–12488 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34021]

Central Michigan Railway Company

and CSX Transportation, Inc.—Joint

Relocation Project Exemption—in

Saginaw, MI

Central Michigan Railway Company

(CMGN) has filed a notice of exemption

under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5) to relocate its

rail operations within the City of

Saginaw, MI, from a portion of its line

to a portion of line owned by CSX

Transportation, Inc. (CSXT). CMGN will

operate over the portion of the line

owned by CSXT by overhead trackage

rights. CMGN states that the transaction

will be consummated by September 1,

2001, but not before April 26, 2001, the

effective date of the exemption.1

CMGN operates over an

approximately 1.92-mile rail line

entirely in Saginaw, from CMGN

milepost 0.07, at or near the Denmark

Switch, to CMGN milepost 1.99, at or

near Hoyt Diamond, MI (subject line).

CMGN currently connects with CSXT at

milepost BB 07, at or near Mershon

Switch.

Under the joint relocation project,

CMGN and CSXT propose the following

trans (1) CMGN will acquire overhead

trackage rights over approximately 2.9

miles of rail line owned by CSXT from

milepost BBO 7 at or near the Mershon

Switch east to milepost CB 1 near the

Saginaw Yard (a distance of

approximately 1.7 miles), then from

milepost CB 1 southeast to milepost CC

2.2, at or near the Hoyt Diamond (a

distance of approximately 1.2 miles), at

which point CMGN would connect with

its main line;2 (2) CMGN will abandon

its operations from CMGN milepost 0.07

at or near the Denmark Switch to CMGN

milepost 1.99 at or near the Hoyt

Diamond (the subject line); and (3)

CMGN will construct a new public team

track facility, approximately 570 feet

long beginning at CSXT milepost CC 2.1

on CSXT’s line and connecting with

CMGN at approximately CMGN’s

milepost 2.04.

The proposed joint relocation project

will not disrupt service to shippers.3 Its

purpose is to eliminate approximately

22 grade crossings (8 of which cross

major system routes) pursuant to a

highway improvement project funded

by CMGN, CSXT, the Michigan

Department of Transportation, the City

of Saginaw and TEA–21 Local Safety

Program funds. Thus, it will enhance

public safety by reducing the risk of

crossing accidents. The notice further

states that CSXT’s trackage rights

provides an alternate route by which

CMGN can access its own rail line.

There will be no expansion into new

territory; nor will there be a change in

the existing competitive situation.

The Board will exercise jurisdiction

over the abandonment or construction

components of a relocation project, and

require separate approval or exemption,

only where the removal of track affects

service to shippers or the construction

of new track involves expansion into a

new territory. See City of Detroit v.

Canadian National Ry. Co., et al., 9

I.C.C.2d 1208 (1993), aff’d sub nom.,

Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority v.

ICC, 59 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Line

relocation projects may embrace

trackage rights transactions such as the

one involved here. See D.T.&I.R.—

Trackage Rights, 363 I.CC. 878 (1981).

Under these standards, the incidental

abandonment, construction, and

trackage rights components require no

separate approval or exemption when

the relocation project, as here, will not

disrupt service to shippers and thus

qualifies for the class exemption at 49

CFR 1180.2(d)(5).

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the

conditions imposed in Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 34021, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on RoseMichele Weinryb, Weiner Brodsky

Sidman Kider PC, 1300 19th Street,

NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC

20036–1609.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: May 10, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12345 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34026]

Summit View, Inc.—Control

Exemption—Mahoning Valley Railroad

Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the

Board exempts from the prior approval

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323, et seq.,

the acquisition by Summit View, Inc.

(Summit) of control of Class III rail

carrier Mahoning Valley Railroad

Company (MVRC). Summit is a

noncarrier holding company that

controls eight Class III rail carriers.1

MVRC’s capital stock is owned by

Cuyahoga Valley Railway Company

which, in turn, is a wholly owned

subsidiary of LTV Steel Company

(LTV).2 On March 28, 2001, Summit

submitted to the Board for review and