17280 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC at YoungstownWarren Regional 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).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Detroit Airports District Office, Willow

Run Airport, East, 8820 Beck Road,

Belleville, Michigan 48111.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Thomas P.

Nolan, Director of Aviation of the

Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport,

Western Reserve Port Authority at the

following address:

Youngstown-Warren Regional

Airport, 1453 Youngstown-Kingsville

Road, NE, Vienna, Ohio 44473–9797.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Western

Reserve Port Authority under section

158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert L. Conrad, Program Manager,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Detroit Airports District Office, Willow

Run Airport, East, 8820 Beck Road,

Belleville, Michigan 48111 (313–487–

7295). 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

Youngstown-Warren Regional 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 February 7, 1997, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by Western Reserve Port

Authority was substantially complete

within the requirements of section

158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than June

6, 1997.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

PFC Application No.: 97–02–C–00–

YNG.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: April

1, 1997.

Proposed charge expiration date:

March 1, 2002.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$734,078.00.

Brief description of proposed

project(s): Terminal Area Access Road &

Rehabilitation & Signage; Airline

Terminal Roof Reconstruction;

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Improvements; Snow Removal

Equipment; Prepare Passenger Facility

Charge Application. Class or classes of

air carriers which the public agency has

requested not be required to collect

PFCs: Air Taxi/Commercial Operators.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any

person may, upon request, inspect the

application, notice, and other

documents germane to the application

in person at the Airport Managers

Office, Youngstown-Warren Regional

Airport.

Issued in Des Plaines, IL, on April 2, 1997.

Irene R. Porter,

Acting Manager, Planning/Programming

Branch, Airports Division, Great Lakes

Region.

[FR Doc. 97–9128 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket S–944]

Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.;

Notice of Additional Application for

Written Permission Pursuant to

Section 805(a) of the Merchant Marine

Act, 1936, As Amended

Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.

(Lykes), by letter of April 4, 1997,

requests further written permission, in

addition to its March 14, 1997, request

published on March 19, 1997 (62 FR

13209–11), and its March 20, 1997

request published on March 25, 1997

(62 FR 14183), pursuant to section

805(a) of the Merchant Marine Act,

1936, as amended (Act), and Lykes’

Operating-Differential Subsidy

Agreement (ODSA), Contract MA/MSB–

451. The April 4, 1997 letter requests

permission for Lykes to become

affiliated after the confirmation of its

Chapter 11 plan of reorganization

(Reorganization Plan), when it will

emerge from Chapter 11 as a reorganized

entity (Reorganized Lykes) with Gilman

Financial Services Inc. (Gilman) through

Gilman’s wholly owned subsidiary GFS

Second Transportation Leasing, Inc.

(GFST). Reorganized Lykes will be 50%

owned by GFST. Lykes’ operatingdifferential subsidy (ODS) is effective

through December 31, 1997, for seven

vessels. The additional request involves

another wholly owned Gilman

subsidiary, GFS Third Transportation

Leasing, Inc., which is the Owner

Participant in a trust agreement under

which Fleet Bank is the Owner Trustee

and documented owner of the vessel

SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR, which is

bareboat chartered to and operated by

Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Sea-Land). The

SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR, which was

built with construction-differential

subsidy, operates in a mixed domestic/

foreign trade, and carries cargo between

the United States Pacific Coast and

Hawaii.

The ‘‘affiliation’’ giving rise to this

request for permission will be created as

part of a restructuring under the

supervision of the United States

Bankruptcy Court. Lykes believes that

the operational facts of this situation

should be distinguished from the more

common section 805(a) situation in

which an ODS contractor wishes to

directly or indirectly establish a

domestic service. While Gilman,

through GFS Third Transportation

Leasing, Inc., indirectly holds a

beneficial interest in the SEA-LAND

NAVIGATOR, that vessel is bareboat

chartered to and operated by Sea-Land.

Lykes states that Reorganized Lykes, as

the ODS contractor, has absolutely no

affiliation with Sea-Land. According to

Lykes, nothing in the affiliation of

Reorganized Lykes and Gilman (and its

subsidiaries) created by the

reorganization will have any effect on

the operation or competitive status of

the SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR, and there

will be no impact on any competitor of

that vessel. Lykes indicates that neither

it nor Reorganized Lykes plans to

operate in the trade in which the SEALAND NAVIGATOR sails.

For the foregoing reasons, and in light

of the complete operational separation

between Reorganized Lykes and the

operator of the vessel in which Gilman

indirectly holds a beneficial interest and

the short remaining term of Lykes’ ODS

contract, Lykes requests that the

Secretary issue written permission

pursuant to section 805(a) for

Reorganized Lykes to become affiliated

with Gilman and its subsidiaries. Lykes

states that grant of the requested

permission will facilitate the

consummation of the Reorganization

Plan and accordingly preserve U.S.-flag

service and the employment of U.S.

seamen. Lykes respectfully requests that

its application be given the most

expeditious possible consideration.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices 17281

Notice is also given that Lykes has

been authorized to be a party to

operating agreements under the

Maritime Security Program (MSP)

Contract Nos. MA/MSP–21 through

MA/MSP–23. Section 656 of the Act

provides that no contractor or related

party shall receive MSP payments

during a period when it participates in

a noncontiguous trade without written

permission. The SEA-LAND

NAVIGATOR operates in the

noncontiguous trade to Hawaii. SeaLand made application under section

656 for the operation of the SEA-LAND

NAVIGATOR among others. A Gilman

subsidiary is the Owner Participant of

the SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR. The

section 656 aspects are being addressed

in Docket MSP–002.

The application may be inspected in

the Office of the Secretary, Maritime

Administration. Any person, firm or

corporation having any interest (within

the meaning of section 805(a)) in Lykes’

request and desiring to submit

comments concerning the request must

by 5:00 PM on April 16, 1997, file

written comments in triplicate with the

Secretary, Maritime Administration,

together with petition for leave to

intervene. The petition shall state

clearly and concisely the grounds of

interest, and the alleged facts relied on

for relief.

If no petition for leave to intervene is

received within the specified time or if

it is determined that petitions filed do

not demonstrate sufficient interest to

warrant a hearing, the Maritime

Administration will take such actions as

may be deemed appropriate.

In the event petitions regarding the

relevant section 805(a) issues are

received from parties with standing to

be heard, a hearing will be held, the

purpose of which will be to receive

evidence under section 805(a) relative to

whether the proposed operations (a)

could result in unfair competition to

any person, firm, or corporation

operating exclusively in the coastwise

or intercoastal service, or (b) would be

prejudicial to the objects and policy of

the Act relative to domestic trade

operations.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 20.805 (Operating-Differential

Subsidy)).

Dated: April 7, 1997.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9205 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9410–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 96–110; Notice 2]

Cosco, Inc.; Mootness of Application

for Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

On August 29, 1996, Cosco, Inc.

(Cosco), filed an application with the

agency for exemption from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 for

noncompliance with the requirements

of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems.’’

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on October 29, 1996, and

an opportunity afforded for comment

(61 FR 55836). The comment closing

date was November 29, 1996. The reader

is referred to that notice for further

information.

After the comment period closed, in

a December 6, 1996, letter to the agency,

Cosco made a request to withdraw its

application for the following reasons:

Upon further review, we (Cosco) do not

believe these booster seats (Cosco Grand

Explorer-Model #02–424 OXF and 02–424

GDM) fall under the jurisdiction of this

section (S5.2.3.2 of S5.2.3, Head Impact

Protection). S5.2.3.1 specifies the child

restraints systems which must meet the

S5.2.3.2 criteria:

S5.2.3.1 Each child restraint system, other

than a child harness, which is recommended

under S5.5.2(f) or children whose masses are

less than 10 kg, shall comply with S5.2.3.2.

The booster seats in question are

recommended for 30 lbs. (13.6 kg) to 60 lbs.

(27 kg), therefore, they are not recommended

for children under 10 kg and the booster seats

are not required to meet S5.2.3.2.

After review of Standard No. 213 and

the facts of this case, the agency agrees

with Cosco’s interpretation of the

applicable sections of the Standard.

Therefore, Cosco’s application is moot,

and the agency is closing Docket No.

96–110 without making a decision on

Cosco’s application.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

Issued on: April 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–9054 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. PDA–15(R)]

Application by Association of Waste

Hazardous Materials Transporters for a

Preemption Determination as to

Houston, Texas, Requirements on the

Storage, Use, Dispensing and Handling

of Hazardous Materials

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Public Notice Reopening

Comment Period.

SUMMARY: RSPA is reopening the

comment period on the application by

the Association of Waste Hazardous

Materials Transporters (AWHMT) for an

administrative determination that

Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts certain

provisions of the Fire Code of the City

of Houston, Texas (Houston Fire Code),

relating to the storage, use, dispensing,

and handling of hazardous materials. In

November 1996, the Houston City

Council amended the Houston Fire

Code, including provisions challenged

in AWHMT’s application. The comment

period is being reopened to allow

interested parties the opportunity to

comment upon the amended

requirements in the Houston Fire Code

and the manner in which these

requirements are presently being

applied and enforced.

DATES: Comments received on or before

May 27, 1997, and rebuttal comments

received on or before July 8, 1997, will

be considered before an administrative

ruling is issued by RSPA’s Associate

Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety. Rebuttal comments may discuss

only those issues raised by comments

received during the initial comment

period and may not discuss new issues.

ADDRESSES: The application and all

comments received may be reviewed in

the Dockets Unit, Research and Special

Programs Administration, Room 8421,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590–0001 (Tel.

No. 202–366–4453). Comments and

rebuttal comments on the application

may be submitted to the Dockets Unit at

the above address, and should include

the Docket Number (PDA–15(R)). Three

copies of each should be submitted. In

addition, a copy of each comment and

each rebuttal comment must also be sent

to (1) Mr. Charles Dickhut, Chairman,

Association of Waste Hazardous

Materials Transporters, 2200 Mill Road,

Alexandria, VA 22314, and (2) Mr. Gene