Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 61687 

captioned as a ‘‘dry lease’’ of an aircraft 

from the owner to the air carrier, and in 

a separate document the same parties 

agree that the owner will provide a 

crewmember to the carrier, such an 

arrangement would still constitute a wet 

lease. The FAA would evaluate the two 

documents together. Such an 

arrangement (assuming the owner is not 

a certified air carrier) also would be 

contrary to section 119.53(b). An air 

carrier does not have actual operational 

control of the carrier flight operations if 

a person other than the air carrier can 

determine who the pilots of the aircraft 

will be or can exercise control over 

those pilots. 

c. If an air carrier and an aircraft 

owner enter into an arrangement labeled 

as a ‘‘dry lease’’ of an aircraft from the 

owner to the carrier but in a separate 

document the parties give the owner the 

right to consent to or approve of the 

selection of crew, then such an 

arrangement might be treated as a wet 

lease depending on the particular 

circumstances. If in practice only the 

owner’s pilots would be approved (as 

shown, for example, by evidence that all 

other pilots had been vetoed for use by 

the owner), the FAA would deem this 

leasing arrangement to be a ‘‘wet lease’’

in contravention of § 119.53(b). A carrier 

cannot be said to enjoy actual 

operational control of its flight 

operations if an aircraft owner (noncarrier) can effectively veto the carrier’s 

proposed pilot assignments, where 

those pilots are otherwise qualified and 

appropriately certificated and trained to 

conduct carrier flights. 

d. The following example would be 

considered a wet lease by the FAA. 

Although the carrier is not formally 

obligated to use the owner’s pilots, it is 

clear from that business arrangement 

between the carrier and the aircraft 

owner that the aircraft owner’s pilots are 

provided with the aircraft. Certain 

aircraft leases contain penalty clauses 

that provide that if the aircraft owner’s 

pilots are not available to fly the aircraft 

for the part 135 carrier, then the aircraft 

owner must compensate the part 135 

carrier for any costs the carrier incurs in 

getting other pilots to fly the aircraft. 

Because the parties contemplated that 

the owner would provide both the 

aircraft and crew, this too constitutes a 

wet lease, even though the carrier 

ultimately may use pilots who did not 

come from the aircraft owner. This type 

of arrangement is contrary to the 

provisions of section 119.53(b) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. Other Arrangements Raising Serious 

Concern as to Operational Control of 

Flight 

a. Operational control issues may 

arise in situations where there are no 

leases whatsoever. On occasion an air 

carrier may make arrangements with an 

aircraft owner to use its aircraft without 

entering into a real lease, and thus, the 

carrier never gets legal possession of the 

aircraft. This sort of informal 

arrangement will raise significant legal 

concerns over inadequate operational 

control when the carrier has no 

contractual arrangements with the crew, 

does not directly pay the crew for their 

service in air carrier operations, and 

receives no direct compensation by the 

customers for transporting passengers or 

property. 

b. Another arrangement raising 

serious legal concern arises when a 

certificated air carrier receives a flat 

‘‘certificate use’’ fee from the aircraft 

owner regardless of the number of 

commercial flights conducted per 

month, and the transportation customer 

pays the aircraft owner directly. Absent 

evidence to the contrary showing that 

the air carrier exercised actual and legal 

operational control of all flights, such 

arrangements constitute an 

inappropriate franchising of an air 

carrier certificate. 

c. Some air carriers only occasionally 

lease aircraft from particular owners, 

who may enter into similar 

arrangements with multiple carriers. 

Although our rules do not forbid this 

practice, each carrier must ensure in all 

of its leasing arrangements that there are 

mechanisms in place to avoid confusion 

over who is using the aircraft and when. 

Similarly, the carrier must have 

procedures that ensure that the 

crewmembers adhere to the instructions 

of the carrier, not the aircraft owner. 

E. Conclusion: Recommended Carrier 

Review of Existing Leasing 

Arrangements 

The foregoing discussion is intended 

to provide the public, including air 

carriers and aircraft owners, with a 

better understanding of the FAA’s 

concerns about the key safety issues 

linked to operational control of flights 

made under the authority of FAA 

certificates. The discussion is also 

intended to encourage air carriers to 

closely consider whether their business 

arrangements comport with the 

requirements for maintaining 

operational control. The FAA urges all 

air carriers to review the leasing and 

other arrangements they have with 

aircraft owners to ensure compliance 

with the regulations. In this regard, the 

FAA encourages carriers to consider 

whether they have sufficient controls in 

place that they have timely knowledge 

to answer the following questions: 

1. What is the actual location of each 

aircraft listed on the carrier’s operations 

specifications? 

2. Who has the carrier authorized to 

fly the aircraft? 

3. Does the carrier have mechanisms 

in place to prevent unauthorized use of 

the aircraft? 

4. Who or what is being transported 

on the aircraft? 

5. Is a given flight for compensation 

or hire? 

6. If the flight is for compensation or 

hire, are the crewmembers properly 

certificated and trained? 

7. Are the crewmembers loyal to the 

air carrier (as opposed to the aircraft 

owner or some other entity) so that they 

will adhere to the carrier’s instructions 

not to fly or to delay a flight or to divert 

a flight? 

8. What procedures and mechanisms 

are in place so that the carrier can fulfill 

its duty to ensure that the aircraft is 

airworthy and meets all of the carrier’s 

maintenance programs? 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 19, 

2005. 

James J. Ballough, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

Andrew B. Steinberg, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–21226 Filed 10–19–05; 3:13 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Preparation of Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Downtown 

Birmingham/University of Alabama 

Birmingham Activity Centers (a.k.a. Intown Transit Partnership Project) 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Alternatives Analysis (AA) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration and the Regional 

Planning Commission of Greater 

Birmingham are conducting an 

alternatives analysis and preparing a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for transit improvements in the 

Downtown Birmingham/University of 

Alabama Birmingham Activity Centers. 

The FTA is the lead federal agency and 

the DEIS will be prepared in accordance 

with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the applicable regulations 

61688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 

for implementing NEPA, as set forth in 

23 CFR part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500–

1508, as well as applicable laws and 

regulations including section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, the Clean Air Act, and Executive 

Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. 

The project will consider the 

following alternatives: (1) A No-Build 

Alternative consisting of improvements 

included in the Birmingham MPO 2030 

Long Range Transportation Plan; (2) 

Transportation System Management 

(TSM) Alternative that includes all 

reasonable cost-effective transit service 

improvements in the study area short of 

the major investment in a New starts 

project; (3) Build Alternative: Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT) project using rubber tired 

vehicles operating either in mixed 

traffic or along an exclusive right-ofway; and (4) Build Alternative: Streetcar 

using light rail technology operating 

along tracks embedded in the pavement 

operating in either mixed traffic or along 

an exclusive right-of-way. The type, 

location, and need for ancillary facilities 

such as maintenance facilities will also 

be considered for each alternative. In 

addition, alternatives that are identified 

during the scoping process will be 

evaluated in the AA. 

Scoping will be accomplished 

through correspondence and 

discussions with interested persons; 

organizations; and Federal, State, and 

local agencies; and through public and 

agency meetings. Depending on the 

outcome of the scoping process and the 

analysis of a range of transit alternatives 

in the DEIS, a Locally Preferred 

Alternative (LPA) will be selected and 

addressed in the Final EIS (FEIS). The 

FEIS will address the potential impacts 

of the selected investment strategy and 

a No-Build Alternative. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: Written 

comments on the scope of alternatives 

and impacts to be considered in the AA/ 

DEIS must be received no later than 

January 20, 2006 and must be sent to the 

Regional Planning Commission of 

Greater Birmingham (RPCGB) at the 

address indicated below. 

Scoping Meeting Date: Public Scoping 

Meetings will be held on Monday and 

Tuesday December 5 and 6, 2005 from 

1 p.m. to 7 p.m. each day at the Regional 

Center for Planning and Design 1st Floor 

Conference Room located at the 

Regional Planning Commission of 

Greater Birmingham, 1731 First Avenue 

North, Birmingham, AL 35203. 

Presentation boards depicting the 

project concept will be available for 

review at the meeting location. Formal 

presentations will be made at 2 p.m. and 

6 p.m. each day. This will be followed 

by the opportunity for the public to 

make comments on the scope of the EIS. 

Regional Planning Commission of 

Greater Birmingham staff will be 

available for informal questions and 

comments throughout the duration of 

each scoping meeting. Oral and written 

comments may be given at the scoping 

meeting; a stenographer will record oral 

comments. Persons with disabilities or 

other special needs such as sign 

language interpretation should contact 

Darrell Howard at the RPCGB (see 

ADDRESSES section below) 72 hours 

prior to the scoping meeting for special 

arrangements. The location is accessible 

to people with disabilities. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

project scope should be sent to: Mr. 

Darrell Howard, Principal 

Transportation Planner, Regional 

Planning Commission of Greater 

Birmingham,1731 First Avenue North, 

Suite 200, Birmingham, AL 35203, 

Phone (205) 264–8441 ext 441. E-mail 

dhoward@rpcgb.org. 

To be added to the mailing list please 

contact Mr. Darrell Howard at the 

address listed above. Please specify the 

mailing list of the Downtown 

Birmingham/University of Alabama 

Birmingham Activity Centers (also 

known as In-town Transit Partnership 

Project). The dates and address of the 

scoping meetings are given in the DATES

section above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request a scoping information packet, 

contact Mr. Darrell Howard, Principal 

Transportation Planner, Regional 

Planning Commission of Greater 

Birmingham, 1731 First Avenue North, 

Suite 200, Birmingham, AL 35203; 

Phone (205) 264–8441 ext 441. E-mail 

dhoward@rpcgb.org. The Federal agency 

contact is: Mr. Len Lacour, 

Transportation Program Specialist, 

Federal Transit Administration—

District 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, 

(404) 562–3515. E-mail is 

len.lacour@fta.dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Description of the Study Area and 

Scope 

The Federal Transit Administration, 

as joint lead agency with the Regional 

Planning Commission of Greater 

Birmingham, will prepare an AA/DEIS 

on a proposal to transit service in a 

study area that is about 2.5 miles long 

and 2.5 miles wide that includes the 

Downtown Birmingham Financial 

Center, the University of Alabama at 

Birmingham (UAB) campus, the Five 

Points South activity center and 

portions of adjacent neighborhoods. The 

study area is generally bounded by 13th 

Avenues North on the north, U.S. 31 

and 280 and 35th Street South on the 

east, 16th Avenue South on the south, 

and Interstate 65 on the west. Most of 

the area is densely developed and serves 

as the Central Business District (CBD) 

for the City of Birmingham and 

represents the largest single 

concentration of employment in the 

metropolitan area. The project is a result 

of the Birmingham MPO Strategic 

Regional Multi-Modal Plan (SRMMP) 

completed in 1999 and the Birmingham 

Regional Transportation Alternatives 

Analysis completed in 2004. The 

Downtown Birmingham/University of 

Alabama Birmingham-Southside was 

one of three corridors recommended for 

priority action. The AA/DEIS will 

include an analysis of alternatives and 

selection of a LPA. This will also 

include conceptual engineering of the 

alternatives considered to a level 

necessary to satisfy the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements. Cost estimates and a 

financial plan that examines alternative 

funding sources will also be prepared. 

II. Purpose and Need 

With more than 80,000 daily workers, 

the Downtown Birmingham and UAB 

area represents the largest single 

concentration of employment in the 

region and is forecast to add another 

17,000 employees over the next 20 

years. As the largest employer in the 

metropolitan area, UAB serves as an 

economic engine for the region and has 

a growing student enrollment of more 

than 16,000. The area also includes 

more than 4.8 million square feet of 

office development, the city’s major 

convention center, and burgeoning 

residential development and 

redevelopment projects in the city 

center and adjacent neighborhoods. 

Maintaining and enhancing access into 

and within these important activity 

centers is critical for the economic 

health of the region and quality of life 

for area residents. Increasing traffic 

congestion, air quality concerns, parking 

constraints, and limited transportation 

choices threaten the continued 

expansion of this vital area. Transit 

service options need to be considered 

that have the potential to: connect 

regional transit services to destination 

points in the downtown and university 

areas, connect residential 

neighborhoods to employment and 

retail businesses, reduce the demand for 

additional parking spaces in the core 

area, reduce automobile travel for short 

trips between various destinations 

within the Downtown and UAB areas, 

reinforce the city center as a regional 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 61689 

destination, support expansion plans for 

both UAB and the Convention Center, 

and better serve transit dependant 

populations are needed. 

III. Alternatives 

Alternatives have been identified to 

address transportation needs in the 

study area, connecting major activity 

centers including the Downtown 

Financial core, University of Alabama 

Birmingham Campus, Five Points South 

commercial area, the Convention 

Center, area hospitals/medical centers, 

and adjacent neighborhoods. The 

project will be consistent with Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) 

Alternatives Analysis and Section 5309 

New Start Program requirements for 

determining future federal funding in 

recommended programs and be 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

alternatives being considered will 

analyze mobility needs and identify and 

compare the costs, benefits, and impacts 

of a range of transit alignment and 

technology alternatives. At a minimum 

the following alternatives will be 

considered: 

• No-Build Alternative—This 

includes all of the transportation 

improvements included in the RPCGB 

Year 2030 Long Range Transportation 

Plan but assumes that the potential new 

start project being evaluated in the EIS 

is not constructed. 

• Transportation System 

Management (TSM) Alternative—This 

includes all of the improvements 

assumed in the No-Build alternative 

plus other reasonable low cost 

improvements to address the project 

purpose and need. The TSM also 

assumes that the potential new start 

project being considered in the EIS is 

not constructed. 

• Build Alternative: Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT)—This assumes that all of 

the improvements included in the NoBuild Alternative are constructed plus 

the addition of a rubber tired transit 

service that operates in either mixed 

traffic or in reserved right-of-way 

connecting the major activity centers in 

the study area. 

• Build Alternative: Streetcar—This 

assumes that all of the improvements 

included in the No-Build Alternative are 

constructed plus the addition of a rail 

transit service that operates on tracks in 

either mixed traffic or in reserved rightof-way connecting the major activity 

centers in the study area. 

The alternatives will be developed 

further during the preparation of the 

AA/DEIS. Based on previous studies 

several candidate streets in the study 

area have been identified as possible 

alignments for the Build Alternatives. 

These streets include: 18th Street, 19th 

Street, 20th Street, and Richard 

Arrington Blvd in the north-south 

direction and 5th Avenue South, 6th 

Avenue South, 7th Avenue South, and 

University Boulevard in the east-west 

direction. Additional reasonable Build 

Alternatives suggested during the 

scoping process including those 

involving other modes, may be 

considered. 

IV. Probable Effects 

The purpose of the DEIS is to fully 

disclose the environmental 

consequences of building and operating 

a major capital investment in the 

Downtown Birmingham and UAB 

Activity Centers study area in advance 

of any decision to commit substantial 

financial or other resources towards its 

implementation. The DEIS will explore 

the extent to which study alternatives 

and alignment options result in 

environmental impacts and will discuss 

actions to reduce or eliminate such 

impacts. 

Environmental issues to be examined 

in the DEIS include impacts to: 

Community facilities, cultural 

resources, parklands, traffic operations, 

parking, transit service and operations, 

local economy, air quality, noise and 

vibration, environmental justice 

populations, potential contaminated 

sites, and water resources as well as any 

displacements of residents and 

businesses. Impacts will be identified 

for both the construction period and 

long term operation of the alternatives. 

The proposed transportation criteria 

will include transportation, social, 

economic, and financial measures as 

required by current federal (NEPA) 

environmental laws and the 

implementing regulations of the Council 

on Environmental Quality and of FTA. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action will be 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed and the DEIS should be 

directed to Mr. Darrell Howard at the 

RPCGB at the address noted in the 

ADDRESSES section above. 

V. FTA Procedures 

Depending on the outcome of the 

scoping process and the analysis of a 

wide range of transit alternatives, an 

LPA will be selected and evaluated in 

the DEIS. The DEIS will be prepared 

simultaneously with the conceptual 

engineering for the alternatives, 

including station and alignment 

options. The DEIS will address the 

potential use of federal funds for the 

proposed action as well as assess the 

social, economic, environmental, and 

transportation impacts of the station and 

alignment options. Station and 

alignment options will be refined to 

minimize and mitigate any adverse 

impacts. 

After publication, the DEIS will be 

available for public and agency review 

and comment, and a public hearing will 

be held. Based on the DEIS and 

comments received, the LPA may be 

refined, and the RPCGB will further 

assess the LPA in the Final EIS and will 

apply for FTA approval to initiate 

Preliminary Engineering of the LPA. 

Issued on: October 19, 2005. 

Alexander E. McNeil, 

Director, Office of Planning & Program 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–21237 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket Number 2005 22783] 

Requested Administrative Waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Invitation for public comments 

on a requested administrative waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel 

CRYSTAL SPIRIT. 

SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 

105–383 and Public Law 107–295, the 

Secretary of Transportation, as 

represented by the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), is authorized 

to grant waivers of the U.S.-build 

requirement of the coastwise laws under 

certain circumstances. A request for 

such a waiver has been received by 

MARAD. The vessel, and a brief 

description of the proposed service, is 

listed below. The complete application 

is given in DOT docket 2005–22783 at 

http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties 

may comment on the effect this action 

may have on U.S. vessel builders or 

businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag 

vessels. If MARAD determines, in 

accordance with Public Law 105–383 

and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR 

part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), 

that the issuance of the waiver will have 

an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.- 

vessel builder or a business that uses 

U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a 

waiver will not be granted. Comments 

should refer to the docket number of 

this notice and the vessel name in order 

for MARAD to properly consider the