18458 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices

6. Have changes in vetting and other

management practices been instituted

since the passage of OPA 90? Have these

changes been made as a direct result of

section 4115 of OPA 90? What impact

have these changes had on ship safety

and the reduction of pollution into the

marine environment?

7. What is your experience with the

operational safety of double hull tank

vessels in regard to stability during

loading and discharge, safe access to

ballast spaces, ventilation of ballast

spaces, salvage, and other safety issues?

8. What is your inspection and

maintenance experience in regard to

corrosion protection and structural

performance of double hull tank

vessels?

9. Have you had any structural

problems on double hull tank vessels?

10. What design changes would you

suggest in double hull tank vessels?

11. Based on your experience, what

are the advantages and disadvantages of

double hull tank vessels as compared to

single hull tank vessels?

12. Has OPA 90, section 4115, forced

the retirement of single hull tank vessels

earlier than desired or expected? If so,

how much earlier and for what specific

reason?

13. How do maintenance and

operating costs differ between double

hull and single hull tankers? Are higher

costs anticipated for maintaining

internal tank coatings? Manning and

training requirements? Insurance?

Drydocking and other maintenance and

repair costs?

14. To what extent will pre-MARPOL

tankers be modified to meet MARPOL’s

requirements for protectively located/

segregated ballast tanks in order to gain

additional life in the Regulation 13G

retirement schedule?

15. Will MARPOL tankers in the

international trade operate for the full

30 year limit or retire early? If they

retire early, how much earlier?

16. Has the phase-out schedule for

single hull tankers in OPA 90 affected

the ability of shipping companies to

finance replacement vessels? If so, how?

17. Has a two-tiered market developed

in which double hull tank vessels

receive higher freight rates than single

hull tank vessels? If so, what is the

difference? If not, will such a two-tiered

market develop in the future?

18. To what extent will existing tank

vessels without double hulls be

reconstructed to comply with the

double hull requirements of OPA 90

section 4115? At what cost? (Jones Act

and international trades.)

19. Coast Guard lightering regulations

permit the use of certain single hull

vessels in specified lightering zones

within U.S. territorial waters until 2015,

five years beyond the mandated double

hull conversion schedule of OPA 90,

section 4115. What is the potential

impact of the lightering regulations on

the use of single hull vessels in U.S.

waters?

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Director for Standards, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 96–10256 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability, Final

Environmental Impact Statement;

Master Plan Update, SyracuseHancock International Airport,

Syracuse, New York

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration.

The City of Syracuse, Department of

Aviation, owner and operator of

Syracuse-Hancock International Airport,

has prepared a Master Plan update for

the airport. As part of the Plan, it was

determined that a runway parallel to

Runway 10–28 would be needed to

accommodate the anticipated aviation

demand and to allow for necessary

temporary closures to existing Runway

10–28. The proposed project is the

acquisition of approximately 220 acres

of land located primarily northeast of

the airport to provide a site for the

construction of Runway 10L–28R

parallel to, 3,600 ft. north of, and 1,400

ft. east of existing Runway 10–28.

A Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) has been prepared by

the FAA and the City of Syracuse which

assesses the impact of alternative airport

improvements. In the first phase of

development, a runway 7,500 ft. long

and 150 ft. wide would be constructed.

In the second phase of development, the

runway would be extended to an

ultimate length of 9,000 ft. The 3,600 ft.

lateral separation between the parallel

runways would provide the capability

to accommodate dual simultaneous ILS

approaches to these runways.

Copies of the FEIS are available for

review at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, Regional Office,

Fitzgerald Federal Building, JFK Int’l

Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430. FAA

Contact person is Mr. Frank Squeglia,

Environmental Specialist (718) 553–

3325.

City of Syracuse, Department of

Aviation, Syracuse-Hancock

International Airport, Main Terminal

Building, 2nd Floor Syracuse, New

York 13212. City Contact person is

Mr. Charles Everett, Jr., Commissioner

(315) 454–3263.

Town of Clay, Zoning Dept., 4483 Route

31, Clay, New York 13041.

Town of Cicero, Zoning Dept., 8326 S.

Main St., Cicero, New York 13039.

Town of Dewitt, Zoning Dept., 5400

Butternut Dr., Dewitt, New York

13214.

Town of Salina, Zoning Dept., 201

School Rd., Liverpool, New York

13088.

Syracuse University, Byrd Library, 222

Waverly Ave., Syracuse, New York

13210.

Onondaga Co. Public Library, 447 S.

Salina St., Galleries Mall, Syracuse,

New York 13202.

Comments on the FEIS must be

received within 30 days from the

publication date of this Notice and

addressed to both the FAA and City of

Syracuse at the above addresses. All

substantive comments will be

considered in the FAA Record of

Decision (ROD) which will conclude the

environmental process for this Federal

action.

Issued in Jamaica, New York on April 12,

1996.

Anthony P. Spera,

Acting Manager, Airports Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 96–9961 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Office of the Secretary of

Transportation

[Docket No. OST–96–1288]

Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight

Study: Analytical Framework and

Outreach Plan

AGENCY: Department of Transportation,

Office of the Secretary (OST).

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice provides an

update on the options analysis

framework approved by the DOT Policy

Oversight Group for the DOT

Comprehensive TS&W Study and

requests comments on this framework.

Plans are outlined for informational

focus sessions to explain how the study

is being conducted and to obtain direct

comment from constituent groups.

DATES: To be timely for consideration

for either the analytical framework or

outreach plans for the study, comments

should be received on or before May 28,

1996. However, this docket will remain

open until the study is completed.

FHWA Docket No. 95–5 also will
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices 18459

remain open until completion of the

study.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to Docket No. OST–96–1288,

the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, C–55,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590. All comments received will

be available for examination at the

above address between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must

include a self-addressed, stamped

envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Cynthia Elliot, Office of Policy

Development, FHWA, at (202) 366–

8707; Mr. Carl Swerdloff, Office of

Economics, Office of the Secretary,

DOT, at (202) 366–5427; Ms. Jill

Hochman, Office of Motor Carrier

Information Analysis, at (202) 366–

1861; or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of

Chief Counsel, at (202) 366–1354,

FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours

are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June

1995, the Secretary established the

Policy Oversight Group (POG), chaired

by Assistant Secretary for

Transportation Policy, Frank E. Kruesi,

to ensure major decisions guiding the

Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight

(TS&W) Study would be made on an

intermodal basis and to coordinate the

TS&W Study with the Highway Cost

Allocation Study. The POG includes

policy level representatives from the

offices of the Associate Deputy

Secretary and Director of the Office of

Intermodalism, the Assistant Secretary

for Budget and Programs, and the

Assistant Secretary for Governmental

Affairs, FHWA, Federal Railroad

Administration, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Maritime

Administration, Federal Transit

Administration, and Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (see August,

30, 1995 Federal Register). After

extensive review and discussion, the

POG has formulated and approved an

options analysis framework for the

TS&W Study consisting of three parts:

technical building blocks, policy

approaches, and illustrative scenarios.

For further information on the

Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight

Study, please refer to the February 2,

1995 and August 30, 1995 Federal

Register notices and submissions to

FHWA Docket No. 95–5. For

information on the Highway Cost

Allocation Study, please refer to the

February 10, 1995 Federal Register

notice and to submissions to FHWA

Docket No. 95–6.

This analytical framework is designed

as a structure for gathering information,

such as safety, environmental,

economic, traffic operations, modal

diversion, and bridge and pavement

impacts, about significant truck

configurations that have been suggested

in previous studies (including the

‘‘Report of the Subcommittee on Truck

Size and Weight of the American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Joint Committee on Domestic Freight

Policy’’ (AASHTO, June, 1995), ‘‘Truck

Weight Limits’’ (Transportation

Research Board (TRB), 1990), ‘‘New

Trucks for Greater Productivity and Less

Road Wear, an Evaluation of the Turner

Proposal’’ (TRB, 1990), and ‘‘Longer

Combination Vehicle Operations in

Western States’’ (DOT, 1986)), or may

emerge in the current policy

environment. The framework is

conceived as a flexible tool for

examining the wide range of TS&W

options, from more restrictive to more

liberal, that may receive legislative

consideration now or in the future. With

periodic updates in data or

methodologies, this framework will

ensure that the Department can respond

to significant TS&W proposals without

embarking on a separate, new study for

each proposal. Public comment on this

framework is invited.

Building Blocks

Technical building blocks analyzing a

broad range of truck configurations at

varying gross vehicle weights provide

the foundation for the analytical

framework. These configurations

include three- and four-axle single unit

trucks, five- and six-axle semitrailers,

28-foot doubles, intermediate length

(31- to 33-foot) doubles, and longer

combination vehicles. An evaluation

will be conducted for each configuration

in relation to various highway

system(s)—the Eisenhower National

System of Interstate and Defense

Highways (Interstate System), the

National Network (NN) for trucks, the

National Highway System (NHS), and a

limited system of highways tailored for

the operation of longer combination

vehicles—on which the configuration

operates now or might be proposed to

operate. Operations of each

configuration also will be examined, as

appropriate, in relation to major

geographic considerations for that

configuration—national, regional, and

state. In addition, configurations will be

analyzed at operating weights which

vary according to different assumptions

about axle weight and bridge formula

restrictions. These analytical building

blocks are represented in the matrix

below:

TS&W ANALYTICAL BUILDING BLOCKS BY CONFIGURATION, SYSTEM, AND GEOGRAPHY

Configuration

Maximum gross

weight range (in

pounds)

Highway system Geography

Interstate

system

National

network

National

highway

system

Limited*

systems

for LCV’s

National Regional State

Single Unit Truck .............................................. 54,000–68,000 X X X ................ ................ X X

Semitrailer ......................................................... 80,000–97,000 X X X ................ X X X

Double 28 to 281⁄2 ft. Trailer ............................. 80,000–111,000 X X X ................ X X X

Intermediate Length (31–33 ft.) Double ............ 105,500–128,000 X ................ X ................ X X ................

Longer Combination Vehicles ........................... 105,500–148,000 ................ ................ ................ X X X ................

* Highways on which LCV’s currently operate or might be proposed to operate.

Evaluation of possible regulations

pertaining to a variety of configurations,

such as elimination of grandfather

provisions, freezing weight limits on the

NHS, limiting trailer and semitrailer

lengths to 53 feet, and lifting the longer

combination vehicle freeze also will be

examined.

The inclusion of a configuration at a

gross vehicle weight limit or on a

certain network in the building blocks

for analysis does not imply a

predisposition of the DOT to its

adoption. In response to Congressional

direction to conduct a thorough and
18460 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices

comprehensive study, a wide range of

configurations are being evaluated to

understand the impacts of keeping their

operations strictly at current limits as

well as restricting or expanding their

operations. As a result of the study, if

the Department makes

recommendations for changes in truck

size and weight limitations, such

recommendations would be submitted

to Congress for legislative consideration.

Policy Analysis

A Notice of Proposed Policy for a

Freight Policy Statement setting forth a

policy context for important decisions

affecting freight transportation across all

modes was published in the Federal

Register on April 2, 1996. The second

part of the TS&W analytical framework

will focus directly on such major policy

considerations. DOT’s draft Freight

Policy Statement presents important

principles for all freight-related

decisionmaking which must be applied

to the TS&W context. The POG will be

establishing impact measures for the

study derived from the Freight Policy

Statement, and these will be used in the

Policy Analysis section of the overall

analytical framework.

In addition, the TS&W study will

examine Federal and state role issues;

important international concerns, such

as overweight container movements;

and potential alternative regulatory

approaches. At least four policy

approaches will receive extensive study:

(1) the implications of the existing

TS&W regulatory regime; (2)

implications of expanding Federal

controls on the NHS; (3) issues involved

in increased state authority in TS&W

regulation, and (4) international

considerations affecting TS&W.

Illustrative Options

When all the information required by

the building block and policy analysis is

developed, the study will examine a few

initial scenarios to demonstrate how the

full analysis framework is applied.

Within each broad policy approach

noted above, the POG has selected one

or two illustrative scenarios for full

analysis in order to demonstrate their

full range of impacts and associated

costs and benefits. The scenarios

selected by the POG for full analysis are

not DOT recommendations, but do

illustrate proposals to which DOT might

be asked to respond in the future.

Because the TS&W analytical framework

is flexible and includes many building

blocks, other scenarios could be fully

analyzed in the future as well.

Illustrative scenarios selected for

complete analysis include the following:

1. Status Quo. This scenario serves as

a baseline for other scenarios and

retains all features of current law,

including the ISTEA freeze. Federal size

limits (102-inch maximum vehicle

width, 48-foot minimum semitrailer

length, and 28-foot minimum trailer

length for double-trailer combinations)

remain on Interstate and designated

highways (the National Network). The

size limits would not apply to NHS

highways not already designated as NN

highways under the STAA of 1982.

Federal weight limits (20,000-pound

single- and 34,000-pound tandem-axle

limits, 80,000-pound cap, and Bridge

Formula B) remain on Interstate

highways as do existing grandfather

rights. Operation of LCV’s (any

combination of a truck tractor or

semitrailers carrying more than 80,000

pounds) on the Interstate Highway

System are restricted to what was in use

as of June 1, 1991. Operation of

commercial motor vehicle combinations

with two or more cargo-carrying units

on the NN is restricted to what was in

use on June 1, 1991, subject to state

restrictions on that date.

2. Expanded Federal Control of TS&W

on the NHS. This approach focuses on

a special Federal role on the NHS in

recognition of its importance for

interstate and international commerce.

The following scenarios would be

examined in detail:

a. Restrict weights on non-Interstate

portions of the NHS to Federal limits

but grandfather currently higher state

weight limits on the NHS, and (2)

restrict semitrailer lengths on the NHS

to a maximum of 53 feet but grandfather

operation of existing semitrailers greater

than 53 feet in length on the NHS where

they may now legally operate.

b. Extend Federal STAA size limits

(102-inch maximum vehicle width, 48-

foot minimum semitrailer length, and

28-foot minimum trailer length for

double-trailer combinations) to the

entire NHS. No state could exclude such

vehicles from the NHS. The 80,000

pound GVW limit would remain in

place on the Interstate System except

where higher limits have been

grandfathered.

3. Increasing State Flexibility. This

approach would increase state

flexibility in controlling truck size and

weight on all highway systems. The

following illustrative scenarios would

be evaluated in detail:

a. Lift the Longer Combination

Vehicle freeze which restricts the

operation of LCV’s on the Interstate and

NN highway systems to those that were

in use on or before June 1, 1991. All

other Federal size and weight controls

would remain. Included in the analysis

are two different assumptions: (1) states

retain authority to determine the extent

of grandfather rights, and (2) grandfather

authority is determined at the Federal

level.

b. Replace grandfather provisions

with federally regulated, state voluntary

permit programs for operation of

combinations over 80,000 lbs. GVW.

Federal safety and infrastructure

standards for operation of these vehicles

would be established. Federal axle and

bridge controls would remain.

4. International Considerations. This

approach focuses on continuing concern

about overweight international

container movements. DOT would

evaluate one scenario in which states

would be required to allow use of a sixaxle tractor-semitrailer combination at a

gross weight limit of 97,000 pounds (for

this configuration only). This scenario

assumes establishing axle weight limits

to avoid over-stressing bridges and

establishing minimum Federal safety

standards for operation of these

vehicles. Two alternative systems would

be examined requiring states to allow

this vehicle on: (1) the Interstate System

only, and (2) the entire NHS.

Outreach

Two public meetings to obtain

comment on the TS&W Study were held

in Denver, Colorado, and Washington,

D.C., in the spring of 1995. Since that

time, public outreach has been

conducted through requests for

comment in the Federal Register and on

an informal basis with the most readily

identifiable members of TS&W

constituent communities. Public contact

has included open, informal technical

briefings, meetings with national and

regional interest groups, and

Congressional briefings. To complement

these efforts and ensure better

understanding of the many technical

and innovative elements of DOT’s

TS&W study activities, DOT will

conduct four regional TS&W focus

sessions. These informational focus

sessions will highlight the wide range of

efforts encompassed in the study and

provide for greater public input. They

will be aimed at reaching major

constituencies and experts across the

nation who have knowledge of these

issues and will present information on

major TS&W study elements and the

options analytical framework. Focus

sessions now are being planned for four

geographically diverse cities. These

sessions will be kept to a relatively

small size to facilitate discussion and

information exchange, although there

will be some limited capacity to

accommodate others who wish to

attend.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices 18461

In addition, DOT will continue to

hold open, informal technical briefings

by specialists directly working on

specific segments of the TS&W effort.

DOT has held three such briefings—on

preliminary results of Truck Inventory

and Use Survey analysis, on intermodal

diversion analysis and on domestic and

international freight trends. Individuals

attending these briefings have indicated

that they gain useful insight into the

methodologies being used in the study

and that the briefings provide an

opportunity to get detailed answers to

their questions.

DOT also will make available

executive summaries of individual

study reports as they are completed and

brief written updates on progress of the

study. Parties interested in being placed

on a mailing list for technical briefing

announcements, executive summaries,

and periodic updates should provide

their name and address to any of the

DOT contacts noted above. Distribution

of TS&W study report summaries and

updates over the Internet also are being

planned. DOT will continue to provide

updates on its TS&W study at meetings

and conferences held by government,

safety, industry, research, and other

groups as requested.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 19,

1996.

Frank E. Kruesi,

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.

[FR Doc. 96–10278 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA, Inc.; Technical Management

Committee

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L.

92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is

hereby given for the RTCA Technical

Management Committee meeting to be

held May 10, 1996, starting at 9:00 a.m.

The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc.,

1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite

1020, Washington, DC, 20036.

The agenda will include: (1)

Chairman’s Remarks; (2) Review and

Approval of Summary of the Previous

Meeting; (3) Systems Management

Working Group Report to the Technical

Management Committee; (4) Consider

and Approve: a. RTCA course of action

concerning activities relating to

EUROCAE Working Group 52; b. Course

of action concerning white paper on

required system performance; c. Terms

of reference and chairman for new

special committee concerned with

developing FANS systems requirements

and objectives; (5) Take Action on Open

Items from Previous Meeting; (6) Other

Business; (7) Date and Place of Next

Meeting.

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space availability.

With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral

statements or obtain information should

contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140

Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020,

Washington, D.C. 20036; (202) 833–9339

(phone) or (202) 833–9434 (fax).

Members of the public may present a

written statement to the committee at

any time.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 19,

1996.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 96–10123 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

RTCA, Inc.; Special Committee 187;

Mode Select Beacon and Data Link

System

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L.

92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is

hereby given for Special Committee 187

meeting to be held on May 14, 1996,

starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be

held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut

Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington,

DC 20036.

The agenda will be as follows: (1)

Introductory Remarks; (2) Review and

Approval of the Agenda; (3) Review and

Approval of the Summary of the

Previous Meeting; (4) Complete the

Review of Change 2 to RTCA/DO–181A;

(5) Detailed Review of Change 1 to

RTCA/DO–218; (6) Other Business; (7)

Date and Place of Next Meeting.

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space availability.

With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral

statements at the meeting. Persons

wishing to present statements or obtain

information should contact the RTCA

Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,

N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, D.C.

20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone) or (202)

833–9434 (fax). Members of the public

may present a written statement to the

committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 19,

1996.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 96–10124 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Maritime Administration

[Docket S–936]

BSTC Holding Inc.; Notice of

Application To Transfer OperatingDifferential Subsidy Agreement,

Contract MA/MSB–439 to BSTC

Holding Inc.

Notice is hereby given that BSTC

Holding Inc. (Applicant) applies under

sections 605(c) and 608 of the Merchant

Marine Act, 1936, as amended (Act), for

financial aid in the operation of vessels

which are to be used in an essential

service in the foreign commerce of the

United States through approval of the

transfer to the Applicant of OperatingDifferential Subsidy Agreement (ODSA),

Contract MA/MSB–439.

The Applicant is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Atlantic Maritime, Ltd.

(Atlantic). Atlantic was the winning

bidder at bankruptcy for the U.S.-built,

U.S.-flag tanker, the FALCON LEADER.

Closing on the purchase of the FALCON

LEADER is currently pending. Boston

Shipping & Trading, an affiliated

company of the Applicant, will own the

FALCON LEADER.

On March 11, 1996, Atlantic entered

into an agreement to purchase ODSA,

Contract MA/MSB–439 from the estates

of Equity Carriers I, Inc., Equity Carriers

III, Inc., and Asco-Falcon II Shipping

Company (the Estates).

ODSA, Contract MA/MSB–439

provided an operating-differential

subsidy (ODS) for each of three MA

Design C5–M–129 dry bulk cargo

vessels. ODSA, Contract MA/MSB–439

expires on May 23, 2001.

On April 9, 1996, Atlantic assigned its

rights under the agreement to purchase

ODSA, Contract MA/MSB–439 to the

Applicant. The Applicant proposes to

use the ODS provided in the ODSA to

engage the FALCON LEADER in an

essential service in the foreign

commerce of the United States. The

Applicant does not charter or operate

vessels other than the proposed

chartering of the FALCON LEADER. The

Applicant is currently in search of two

additional vessels documented in the

United States that would be suitable to

receive ODS under the ODSA. This

application will be amended when and

if the Applicant identifies such existing

vessels. If the Applicant is not able to

identify two such existing suitable

vessels, the Applicant will seek

permission to utilize the ODS for two

newly constructed or acquired vessels to

be subsequently identified.

The Applicant currently intends to

offer the FALCON LEADER for charter

on the spot and term market in the

Caribbean to U.S. east coast oil product