30262 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Notices

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Arthur Winder, Project

Manager, Washington Airports District

Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite

210, Dulles, VA 22016.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Bryan O.

Elliott, Director of Aviation, of the

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport

Authority at the following address:

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, 201

Bowen Loop, Charlottesville, Virginia

22901.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport

Authority under § 158.23 of part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur Winder, Program Manager,

Wahington Airports District Office,

23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210,

Dulles, VA 22016, (703) 661–1363. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Charlottesville-Albemarle 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 10, 2001, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by Charlottesville-Albemarle

Airport Authority was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than August

15, 2001.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

PFC Application No.: 01–14–C–00–

CHO.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: July 1,

2004.

Proposed charge expiration date:

January 1, 2005.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$220,000.

Brief description of proposed

project(s):

Extend Runway 3 Safety Area, Phase III

(Impose & Use)

PFC Project Administration Fees

(Impose & Use)

Air Carrier Terminal Refurbishment

(Design) Phase II (Impose & Use)

Acquire Snow Removal Equipment

Carrier Vehicle (Impose & Use)

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/

Commercial Operators filing FAA Form

1800–31 and foreign air carriers.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

regional Airports Office located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, AEA–610, 1 Aviation

Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434–4809.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.

Issued in Dulles, Va. 22016, May 24, 2001.

Terry J. Page,

Manager, Washington Airports District Office.

[FR Doc. 01–14109 Filed 6–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

Environmental Impact Statement on

the Central Corridor Project Located

Between Minneapolis and St. Paul,

Minnesota

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration

(FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) is issuing this

notice to advise interested agencies and

the public that, in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act, an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

is being prepared for the Central

Corridor Transit Project located between

Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota.

DATES: One Interagency Scoping

Meeting and two Public Scoping

Meetings will be held on the following

dates and times at the locations

indicated.

Interagency Scoping Meeting

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, from 2:00 p.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Sheraton Midway, 400

North Hamline Avenue, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55104,

Public Scoping Meetings

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, 8:00 a.m. to

9:30 a.m., Sheraton Midway, 400

North Hamline Avenue, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55104

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, 5:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m., Lifetrack Resources Job

Search Center, 709 University Avenue

West, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104

Wednesday, June 27, 2001, 5:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m., Radisson Metrodome, 615

Washington Avenue SE.,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

scope of the analysis and impacts to be

considered should be sent by July 20,

2001 to: Mr. Steve Morris, Project

Manager, Ramsey County Regional

Railroad Authority (RCRRA), 50 West

Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 665, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55102, Telephone: (651)

266–2784, Fax: (651) 266–2761, E-mail:

steve.morris@co.ramsey.mn.us, TDD: 1

800 627–3529.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Joel P. Ettinger, Regional Administrator,

Federal Transit Administration (FTA),

Region V, 200 West Adams Street, Suite

2410, Chicago, Illinois 60606,

Telephone: (312) 353–2789.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FTA

(the federal lead agency for this action)

in cooperation with the Ramsey County

Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA),

the local lead agency, will prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for the Central Corridor Transit Project.

I. Scoping

The FTA and the RCRRA invite

interested individuals, organizations

and federal, state and local agencies to

participate in: defining the options to be

evaluated in the EIS; in identifying the

social, economic and environmental

impacts to be evaluated; and suggesting

alternative options that are less costly or

have fewer environmental impacts

while achieving similar transportation

objectives. An information packet,

referred to as the Scoping Booklet is

being circulated to all federal, state and

local agencies having jurisdiction in the

project, and all interested parties

currently on the RCRRA mailing list.

Other interested parties may request this

Scoping Booklet by contacting Steve

Morris at the address indicated above.

Three Public Scoping Meetings will

be held in the study area. The first will

be held from 8:00 to 9:30 a.m. on

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, at the Sheraton

Midway, 400 North Hamline Avenue,

St. Paul, Minnesota. The second will be

held from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, at the Lifetrack

Resources Job Search Center, 709

University Avenue West, St. Paul,

Minnesota. The third Public Scoping

Meeting will be held from 5:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 27, 2001,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Notices 30263

at the Radisson Metrodome, 615

Washington Avenue Southeast,

Minneapolis, Minnesota. One

Interagency Scoping Meeting will be

held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, at the Sheraton

Midway, 400 North Hamline Avenue,

St. Paul, Minnesota. People with special

needs should call Steve Morris at (651)

266–2784. The buildings are accessible

to persons with disabilities.

Scoping comments may be made

orally at the Public Scoping Meetings or

in writing by July 20, 2001. Comments

or questions should be directed to Mr.

Steve Morris at the address indicated

above.

II. Description of the Study Area and

Transportation Needs

The Central Corridor study area is

described as the 11-mile corridor

extending between Minneapolis and

Saint Paul, Minnesota on the west and

east, and bounded by the Burlington

Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) Northern

Mainline on the north and the Canadian

Pacific Railroad (CP Railway) Shortline

Railroad on the south. The proposed

Central Corridor would connect the

central business districts of Minneapolis

and St. Paul, and the University of

Minnesota, and would serve the transitdependent population located within

the study area.

Throughout the last two decades, the

Central Corridor has been the focus of

several studies regarding the feasibility

of various mass transit modes. Each of

these studies has identified the Central

Corridor as the region’s priority corridor

for mass transit investment. The current

2020 Long-Range Transportation Plan

and the State Transportation

Improvement Program (STIP) both

include funding commitments for the

Central Corridor Project.

In February 2000, the RCRRA

initiated the Central Corridor Transit

Study to identify the mass transit

options for the Central Corridor.

Preliminary phases of the study

identified the purpose and need for

transportation improvements in the

corridor and identified and screened

potential mass transit options that

would meet the purpose and need. The

purpose and need for transportation

improvements in the study area were

focused on three principal areas:

economic opportunity and investment;

communities and environment; and

transportation and mobility. Following a

multiple-phase screening process, it was

determined that the potential mass

transit options that would address the

purpose and need for the Central

Corridor included: Light Rail Transit

(LRT); Busway/ Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT), and Commuter Rail.

Although two commuter rail options

were being considered during the

preliminary phases of the Central

Corridor Transit Study, the evaluation

of the commuter rail options will be

deferred to a separate environmental

document based on regional commuter

rail connections and system planning,

funding and operating agency

responsibility.

A public involvement program has

been developed and initiated with a

website, newsletters, informational

meetings, and public hearings.

III. Alternatives

The transit modes initially considered

for the Central Corridor included: Bus

Transit, Busway/Bus Rapid Transit,

Light Rail Transit, Commuter Rail,

Streetcar, Heavy Rail Transit, Monorail,

Automated Guideway Transit, Personal

Rapid Transit, and Magnetic Levitation.

The seven route alignments initially

studied were the Burlington Northern

Santa Fe Northern Mainline, the

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Southern

Mainline, the Pierce Butler Route,

University Avenue, I–94, the Canadian

Pacific Rail, and the Canadian Pacific

Rail West.

The transportation alternatives

currently proposed for consideration for

the Central Corridor Draft EIS include:

1. No-Build Alternative—No change to

transportation services or facilities in

the Central Corridor beyond already

committed projects. This includes only

those roadway and transit

improvements defined in the

appropriate agencies’ Long Range

Transportation Plans and Transit

Development Plans for which funding

has been committed.

2. Transportation System

Management (TSM) Alternative—Low

cost transportation infrastructure and

bus transit improvements for the Central

Corridor. Intelligent Transportation

Systems (ITS), Travel Demand

Management (TDM), bus operations and

other TSM improvements will be

included in this alternative.

3. Busway/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Alternative—A Busway/Bus Rapid

Transit (BRT) line to be constructed

with several station stops between

downtown Minneapolis, the University

of Minnesota and downtown St. Paul,

primarily in exclusive guideway in the

center of University Avenue. The

alternative would include all facilities

associated with the construction and

operations of the Busway/BRT,

including right-of-way, structures, and

stations, as well as Busway/BRT, feeder

bus and rail operating plans. The

Busway/BRT alternative would also

incorporate the elements of the NoBuild and TSM alternatives.

4. Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Alternatives—A Light Rail Transit (LRT)

line to be constructed with several

station stops between downtown

Minneapolis, the University of

Minnesota and downtown St. Paul, on

either University Avenue or I–94. Both

the University Avenue and I–94 LRT

alternative would incorporate the

elements of the No-Build and TSM

alternatives.

The I–94 LRT Alternative would

provide LRT service, primarily in

barrier-separated exclusive lanes in the

median of I–94. The alternative would

include all facilities associated with the

construction and operations of the LRT,

including right-of-way, tracks,

structures, and stations, as well as LRT,

feeder bus and rail operating plans.

The University Avenue LRT

Alternative would provide LRT service,

primarily in exclusive lanes in the

center of University Avenue. The

alternative would include all facilities

associated with the construction and

operations of the LRT, including rightof-way, tracks, structures, and stations,

as well as LRT, feeder bus and rail

operating plans.

IV. Probable Effects/Potential Impacts

for Analysis

The FTA and the RCRRA will

consider probable effects and

potentially significant impacts to social,

economic and environmental factors

associated with the alternatives under

evaluation in the EIS. Potential

environmental issues to be addressed

will include: Land use, historic and

archaeological resources, traffic and

parking, noise and vibration,

environmental justice, regulatory

floodway/floodplain encroachments,

coordination with transportation and

economic development projects, and

construction impacts. Other issues to be

addressed in the EIS include: natural

areas, ecosystems, rare and endangered

species, water resources, air/surface

water and groundwater quality, energy,

potentially contaminated sites,

displacements and relocations, and

parklands. The potential impacts will be

evaluated for both the construction

period and the long-term operations

period of each alternative considered. In

addition, the cumulative effects of the

proposed project alternatives will be

identified. Measures to avoid or mitigate

any significant adverse impacts will be

developed.

30264 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Notices

V. FTA Procedures

In accordance the regulations and

guidance established by the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ), as well as

the Code of Federal Regulations, Title

23, Part 771 (23 CFR 771) of the FHWA/

FTA environmental regulations and

policies, the EIS will include an

analysis of the social, economic and

environmental impacts of each of the

alternatives selected for evaluation. The

EIS will also comply with the

requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (CAAA) and with

Executive Order 12898 regarding

Environmental Justice. After its

publication, the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) will be

available for public and agency review

and comment. Public hearings will be

held on the DEIS.

The Final EIS will consider comments

received during the DEIS public review

and will identify the preferred

alternative. Opportunity for additional

public comment will be provided

throughout all phases of project

development.

Issued on: May 30, 2001.

Joel P. Ettinger,

Region 5 Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration, Chicago, Illinois.

[FR Doc. 01–14102 Filed 6–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–9732]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1993

Ford Mustang Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1993 Ford

Mustang 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 1993 Ford

Mustang 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 July 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: 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 1993 Ford Mustang passenger

cars originally manufactured for the

European market are eligible for

importation into the United States. The

vehicles which WETL believes are

substantially similar are 1993 Ford

Mustang 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 1993 Ford

Mustang 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 1993 Ford Mustang

passenger cars, as originally

manufactured, conform to many Federal

motor vehicle safety standards in the

same manner as their U.S. certified

counterparts, or are capable of being

readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

non-U.S. certified 1993 Ford Mustang

passenger cars are identical to their U.S.

certified counterparts with respect to

compliance with Standard Nos. 102

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

* * *, 103 Defrosting and Defogging

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and

Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake

Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 108 Lamps,

Reflective Devices and Associated

Equipment, 109 New Pneumatic Tires,

111 Rearview Mirror, 113 Hood Latch

Systems, 114 Theft Protection, 116

Brake Fluid, 118 Power Window

Systems, 124 Accelerator Control

Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in

Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints,

204 Steering Control Rearward

Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials,

206 Door Locks and Door Retention

Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208

Occupant Crash Protection, 209 Seat

Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, 212 Windshield Retention,

214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof

Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone

Intrusion, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and

302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

non-U.S. certified 1993 Ford Mustang

passenger cars comply with the Bumper

Standard found in 49 CFR part 581 and

the Vehicle Identification Number plate

requirement of 49 CFR part 565.

Petitioner also contends that the nonU.S. certified 1993 Ford Mustang

passenger cars are not identical to their

U.S. certified counterparts, as specified

below, but still comply with the

following Standard in the manner

indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: the speedometer indicates

both kilometers per hour and mile per

hour. The odometer indicates kilometers

and is labeled as such. The brake

warning indicator meets the

requirements.

Petitioner further contends that the

vehicles are capable of being readily