Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Notices 67931

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Application for Certificates of

Public Convenience and Necessity and

Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under

Subpart Q During the Week Ending

December 19, 1997

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart Q of

the Department of Transportation’s

Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR

302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for

Answers, Conforming Applications, or

Motions to Modify Scope are set forth

below for each application. Following

the Answer period DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.

Such procedures may consist of the

adoption of a show-cause order, a

tentative order, or in appropriate cases

a final order without further

proceedings.

Docket Number: OST–97–3270.

Date Filed: December 19, 1997.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: January 16, 1998.

Description: Application of WestJet

Express Airlines, Inc., pursuant to 49

U.S.C., 41102 and Subpart Q of the

Regulations, request a certificate of

public convenience and necessity

authorizing WestJet to engage in

interstate charter air transportation of

person, property and mail. WestJet also

requests that this application be

processed through the use of expedited

non-hearing procedures, and that if

possible, the Department proceed

directly to a Final Order in this matter.

Docket Number: OST–97–3273.

Date Filed: December 19, 1997.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: January 16, 1998

Description: Application of

Continental Airlines, Inc., pursuant to

49 U.S.C. 41108, 41102 and Subpart Q

of the Regulations, applies for a

certificate of public convenience and

necessity authorizing Continental to

provide scheduled foreign air

transportation of persons, property and

mail between Houston, Texas and Sao

Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte,

Brasilia, Curitiba and Porto Alegre,

Brazil, and to combine this authority

with Continental’s other exemption and

certificate authority consistent with

applicable international agreements.

Continental also asks for an allocation of

the seven U.S.-Brazil combination

frequencies which become available

October 1, 1998, pursuant to the U.S.-

Brazil Memorandum of Consultations

signed November 18, 1997.

Paulette V. Twine,

Documentary Services.

[FR Doc. 97–33903 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3268]

Panoz Auto Development Company;

Receipt of Application for Second

Renewal of Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208

Panoz Auto Development Company of

Hoschton, GA., has applied for a second

renewal of its exemption from

paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Occupant Crash Protection. The basis of

the reapplication is that compliance will

cause substantial economic hardship to

a manufacturer that has tried to comply

with the standard in good faith.

This notice of receipt of an

application for renewal is published in

accordance with the requirements of 49

U.S.C. 30113(b)(2) and does not

represent any judgment of the agency on

the merits of the application.

Panoz received NHTSA Exemption

No. 93–5 from S4.1.4 of Standard No.

208, an exemption for two years which

was initially scheduled to expire August

1, 1995 (58 FR 43007). It applied for,

and received, a renewal of this

exemption for an additional two years,

scheduled to expire on November 1,

1997 (61 FR 2866). On August 28, 1997,

NHTSA received Panoz’s application for

second renewal, which was more than

60 days before the scheduled expiration

date of its exemption. In accordance

with 49 CFR 555.8(e), Panoz’s filing of

its application before the 60th day stays

the expiration until the Administrator

grants or denies the application for

second renewal.

Panoz’s original exemption was

granted pursuant to the representation

that its Roadster would be equipped

with a Ford-supplied driver and

passenger airbag system, and would

comply with Standard No. 208 by April

5, 1995 after estimated expenditures of

$472,000. As of April 1993, the

company had expended 750 man hours

and $15,000 on the project.

According to its 1995 application for

renewal,

Panoz has continued the process of

researching and developing the installation

of a driver and passenger side airbag system

on the Roadster since the original exemption

petition was submitted to NHTSA on April

5, 1993. To date, an estimated 1680 manhours and approximately $50,400 have been

spent on this project.

At that time, Panoz used a 5.0L Ford

Mustang GT engine and five speed

manual transmission in its car. Because

‘‘the 1995 model year and associated

emission components were revised by

Ford’’, this caused

a delay in the implementation of the airbag

system on the Roadster due to further

research and development time requirements

and expenditure of additional monies to

evaluate the effects of these changes on the

airbag adaptation program.

Shortly before filing its application for

first renewal, Panoz learned that Ford

was replacing the 5.0L engine and

emission control system on the 1996

Mustang and other passenger cars with

a modular 4.6L engine and associated

emission components. The 1995 system

did not meet 1996 On-Board Diagnostic

emission control requirements, and

Panoz was faced with using the 1996

engine and emission control system as

a substitute. The majority of the money

and man hours at that time had been

spent on adapting an airbag system to

the 5.0L engine car, and the applicant

had to concentrate on adapting it to a

4.6L engine car. Panoz listed eight types

of modifications and testing necessary

for compliance that would cost it

$337,000 if compliance were required at

the end of a one-year period. It asked for

and received a two-year renewal of its

exemption.

However, Panoz found integration of

the 4.6L engine into its existing chassis

more difficult than anticipated,

primarily because the 4.6L was 10

inches wider than the engine it

replaced. This required a total redesign

of the chassis, requiring expenditure of

‘‘a significant amount of resources.’’

Simultaneously, it designed the vehicle

to allow for the integration of the Ford

Mustang driver-side and passenger-side

airbag systems. Panoz describes these

steps in some detail and estimates that

between May 1995 and August 1997 it

spent 2200 man-hours and $66,000 on

these efforts. In the same time period, it

spent $47,000 in static and dynamic

crash testing of a 4.6L car related to

airbag system development. Panoz

concludes by describing the additional

modifications and testing required to

adapt the Ford system to its car. These

costs total $358,000. A two-year renewal

of its exemption would provide

sufficient time to generate sufficient

income (approximately $15,000 a month

through sales of vehicles and private