26246 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

Fees, or Commissions in Connection

with the sale of Defense Articles or

Services.

Frequency: Annually.

Form Number: OMB #1405–0025.

Respondents: Exporters of Defense

Articles or Services.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

4,500.

Average House Per Response: 8 hours.

Total Estimated Burden: 96,000

hours.

Public comments are being solicited

to permit the agency to—

• Evaluate whether the proposed

information collection is necessary for

the proper performance of the agency

functions.

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on

those who are to respond, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of technology.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Comments

regarding the collection listed in this

notice or requests for copies of the

proposed collection and supporting

documents should be directed to

Charles S. Cunningham, Directives

Management Branch, U.S. Department

of State, Washington, DC 20520, (202)

647–0596.

Dated: April 30, 1998.

Andrew J. Winter,

Deputy Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–12500 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–25–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Impose and Use the Revenue From

a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at

Monterey Peninsula Airport, Monterey,

CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC at Monterey

Peninsula Airport under the provisions

of the Aviation Safety and Capacity

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990) (Public Law 101–508) and Part

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Airports Division,

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA

90261 or San Francisco Airports District

Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210,

Burlingame, CA 94010–1303. In

addition, one copy of any comments

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Ms. Susan Kovalenko,

Manager, Support Services, Monterey

Peninsula Airport District, at the

following address: 200 Fred Kane Drive,

Suite 200, Monterey, CA 93940.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Monterey

Peninsula Airport District under section

158.23 of Part 158

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlys Vandervelde, Airports Program

Specialist, Airports District Office, 831

Mitten Road, Room 210, Burlingame CA

94010–1303, Telephone: (650) 876–

2806. 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

Monterey Peninsula Airport under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On April 9, 1998, the FAA determined

that the application to impose and use

the revenue from a PFC submitted by

the Monterey Peninsula Airport District

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 July 14, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

application number 98–04–C–00–MRY.

Level of proposed PFC: 3.00

Proposed charge effective date: June

1, 2000.

Proposed charge expiration date:

February 1, 2001.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $510,159.

Brief description of proposed projects:

Slurry Seal Aircraft Pavement at

Monterey Peninsula Airport Southeast

T-Hangars and Slurry Seal Fred Kane

Drive; Extend Fire Protection Water

Main on Northside of Airport; Airfield

Lighting Improvements; Extend Old

Northside Storm Drain to Detention

Pond; Airfield Generator Fuel System;

Install Halotron in Aircraft Rescue

Firefighting Vehicle; Concrete Repair/

Sealant at South Side Ramp; Holding

Apron for Taxiway ‘‘A’’ at West End;

Realign Portion of Sky Park Drive;

Reconstruct/Realign Southeast Entrance;

Slurry Seal Taxiway ‘‘B,’’ Slurry Seal

General Utility Runway 10L/28R and

Taxiways; Extend 12′′ Water Main to

Old North Side; Paving of Blast Pad at

Holding Area 10R; Terminal Automatic

Door Replacement; Terminal Roof

Replacement Phase 1; Noise Exposure

Map Update; and Relocation of Power

Pole Line at Sky Park Drive.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: unscheduled/

intermittent Part 135 air taxis.

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 Division located at:

Federal Aviation Administration, 15000

Aviation Blvd. Lawndale, CA 90261.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Monterey

Peninsula Airport District.

Issued in Hawthorne, California, on April

22, 1998.

Hermane C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 98–12585 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement;

Orange County, FL, Notice of Intent

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

will be prepared for a proposed highway

project in Orange County, Florida.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark D. Bartlett, Programs Operation

Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, 227 N. Bronough Street,

Room 2015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301,

Telephone (904) 942–9598.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the Florida

Department of Transportation, will

prepare an EIS for a proposal to improve

and extend SR 438 (John Young

Parkway) from SR 50 (W. Colonial

Drive) to SR 424 (Edgewater Drive) at SR

434 (Forest City Road), a distance of

approximately 4.2 miles (6.7 km). The

proposed improvement will complete
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26247

the link between Kissimmee and

Maitland. This arterial will provide an

alternative to I–4 traffic through

Orlando, and will also alleviate traffic

congestion on the existing local

connecting streets of Lee Road, Carder

Road, US 441, All American Boulevard,

and Edgewater Drive that now must

carry continuing northbound traffic to

Forest City Road.

Alternatives under consideration are:

(1) ‘‘No Build’’, or no improvements

within the corridor beyond what is now

committed; (2) Improvement of existing

roadway facilities including

transportation management system

(TSM) within the corridor and; (3) New

alignment: six-laning and extension of

John Young Parkway from SR 50 to

Forest City Road.

In the EIS, the FHWA and local

agencies will evaluate all environmental

impacts of the project, including socioeconomic impact, cultural impact, and

public recreational facility impact to the

roadway corridor and surrounding

communities, natural impacts to the

wildlife and vegetation, and physical

impacts to land use aesthetics, noise

levels, and air and water quality of the

area. Impacts to floodplain and

Outstanding Florida Waters, wetlands

and endangered or threatened species,

wildlife corridors and critical habitat

will be evaluated. The presence of

contaminated properties or potential

contamination will be evaluated.

Impacts will be evaluated for both short

term and long term duration and

mitigation of any impacts will be

studied. Storm water volume and

quality management will be a major

design consideration. Meeting the local

transportation needs, both personal and

mass transit, and public service needs of

the area communities are goals of the

study.

Letters with description of the

proposed project soliciting comments

will be sent to appropriate Federal,

State, and local agencies, as well as

private groups and citizens that have

expressed interest in this proposal.

Public notice will be issued for a series

of public meetings and hearings to be

held in Orange County and the City of

Orlando between April, 1998 and

March, 1999, where the Draft EIS will be

available to the agencies and public for

review and discussion. A formal

scoping meeting is planned at the

project site during 1998. Comments on

the proposal from all interested parties

are solicited and should be directed to

the FHWA contact person listed above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

J.R. Skinner,

Division Administrator, Tallahasse.

[FR Doc. 98–12561 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3812; Notice 1]

Bug Motors, Inc.; Receipt of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Two Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards

Bug Motors, Inc., which has its

principal place of operations in Long

Beach, California, (‘‘Bug’’) has applied

for a temporary exemption of three years

from two Federal motor vehicle safety

standards as described below. The basis

of the application is that compliance

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has

tried in good faith to comply with each

of the standards.

This notice of receipt of an

application 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.

In June 1997, California granted a

year’s license as a ‘‘Vehicle

Remanufacturer’’ to Looking Glass

Replicas of Long Beach, of which

Kenneth Scheiler was the sole

proprietor. Mr. Scheiler changed this

business entity into ‘‘Bug Motors, Inc.’’

in December 1997, a corporation of

which he is the sole shareholder and

president. Therefore, Bug has not

manufactured any vehicles in the 12-

month period preceding the filing of its

Application, nor can it file financial

information for the three fiscal years

called for by the regulation. Upon

incorporation, its assets were stated as

$224,600. Mr. Scheiler has been engaged

in refurbishing used Volkswagen

Beetles, and would now like to produce

‘‘new and improved replicas’’ of the car.

Bug intends to buy certain vehicle

components from Volkswagen-Mexico,

import them into the United States, and

assemble Volkswagen ‘‘Beetles’’ to be

sold under the name ‘‘the Bug.’’

Specifically, Bug will buy and import

new chasses, axles, and bodies

including interior components. The Bug

will be equipped with a refurbished

1973 engine and ‘‘a rebuilt speedometer

(converted from Kilometers to Miles).

Under California law, the Bug will be

titled as a ‘‘1998 Remanufactured

Vehicle,’’ but is considered ‘‘used’’

rather than ‘‘new.’’ NHTSA reviewed

the intended modus operandi with the

applicant’s attorney and concurred with

Bug’s decision that, under these facts,

the Bug should be treated under Federal

law as a newly manufactured passenger

car which is required to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

In addition to the conventional Beetle

two-door sedan, Bug will offer two

convertible models. One is a sedan

modified to have an electric-powered

fabric roof that opens along the roof

rails. The other is a fully convertible car

with a manually-operated top, the

familiar Beetle convertible. Bug’s

Application includes a list of the

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, indicating the compliance

status of the Bug with respect to each.

Representation is made that the Bug

complies (e.g., Standard No. 104) or

complies with a minor exception which

will be modified in production (e.g.,

addition of a brake warning light,

Standard No. 105). However, the Bug

will not comply with Standard No. 208

and Standard No. 214.

Specifically, under Standard No. 208,

the Bug will be equipped with a threepoint restraint system, but ‘‘the warning

system, including audio and visual

aids’’ will only ‘‘be available within one

year after production commences, and

most likely within 6 months.’’ Bug says

that it ‘‘has been working with vendors

to adapt a Dual Inflatable Restraint

System to the Bug,’’ but it anticipates

that an entire three-year period will be

required for the system to be developed

and implemented.

With respect to Standard No. 214, Bug

states that it ‘‘has been attempting to

identify vendors and parts for the

installation of door beams for the Bug’’

and that it ‘‘is uncertain as to what, if

any, engineering will have to be

performed to document compliance.’’ It

hopes to achieve compliance within a

three-year period.

In support of its hardship argument,

Bug informs NHTSA that it would be

put out of business if the Application is

not granted, as its subsidiary business of

refurbishing Beetles is not sufficient to

carry it alone. In addition, its national

distributor would lose its entire

investment in start-up costs, estimated

to exceed $100,000.

An exemption would be in the public

interest as it will allow Bug to increase

its workforce from seven to 35 people

within a year, drawn from ‘‘a significant

number of minorities, including

Hispanics, Asians, and AfricanAmericans.’’ The availability of the Bug