Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27615

certificate holder under part 135

without having received ground and

flight training in accordance with that

certificate holder’s training program

approved under subpart H of part 135.

That exemption also permits simulator

instructors employed by Bombardier

and listed in a certificate holder’s

approved training program to serve in

advanced simulators without being

employed by the certificate holder for 1

year, provided the instructors receive

applicable training in accordance with

the provisions of this exemption.

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6446A.

Docket No.: 29176.

Petitioner: Col. Marcus F. Cooper, Jr.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.383(c).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

act as a pilot in operations conducted

under part 121 after reaching his 60th

birthday.

Denial, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6759.

Docket No.: 28499.

Petitioner: Sky Helicopters, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Sky Helicopters

to operate certain aircraft under the

provisions of part 135 without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed on

those aircraft

Grant, April 30, 1998, Exemption No.

6430A.

Docket No.: 26017.

Petitioner: ERA Aviation, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

43.3(a) and 135.443(b)(3).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit ERA to allow

appropriately trained and certificated

pilots employer by ERA to install and

remove an approved emergency rescue

hoist on its Aerospatiale AS332 Super

Puma helicopters.

Disposition, Date, Exemption No.

6760.

Docket No.:

Petitioner:

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit.

Disposition, Date, Exemption No.

[FR Doc. 98–13267 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

98–01–C–00–MHK To Impose and Use

the Revenue From a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at Manhattan Regional

Airport, Manhattan, KS

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 Manhattan

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 June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Central Region,

Airports Division, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, MO 64106.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Ken Black,

Airport Manager, Manhattan Regional

Airport, at the following address: City of

Manhattan, Kansas, Manhattan Regional

Airport, 5500 Fort Riley Blvd., Suite

120, Manhattan Kansas 66502–9721.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the City of

Manhattan, Manhattan Regional Airport,

under section 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorna Sandridge, PFC Program Manager,

FAA, Central Region, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 426–4730.

The application may be reviewed in

person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invite public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at the

Manhattan 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 May 1, 1998, the FAA determined

that the application to impose and use

the revenue from a PFC submitted by

the City of Manhattan, Kansas, 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 31, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: June,

1998.

Proposed charge expiration date:

January, 2004.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$401,978.

Brief description of proposed

project(s): Construction of Access Road

(Phase 1); Installation of Part 139

Signage; Construct Terminal Building;

Terminal Building Site Development;

Construct Service Road; Update the

Airport Master Plan; Rehabilitate Apron.

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 Manhattan

Regional Airport. Issued in Kansas City,

Missouri on May 1, 1998.

George A. Hendon,

Manager, Airports Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 98–13266 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–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

Outagamie County Airport, Appleton,

WI

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 Outagamie

County 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 June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Minneapolis Airports District
27616 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room

102, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Debra Giuffre,

Airport Manager of the Outagamie

County Airport at the following address:

W6390 Challenger Drive, Suite 201,

Appleton, WI 54915.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the County of

Outagamie under section 158.23 of Part

158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra E. DePottey, Program Manager,

Minneapolis Airports District Office,

6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102,

Minneapolis, MN 55450, 612 713–4363.

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

Outagamie County 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 April 16, 1998 the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by County of Outagamie 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 18, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

PFC application number: 98–03–C–

00–ATW.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date:

January 1, 1999.

Proposed charge expiration date:

April 1, 2004.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$3,909,000,00.

Brief description of proposed projects:

Electrical vault expansion, Emergency

generator, Airport rescue and

firefighting vehicle (ARFF), Access road

construction, Runway end blast pads,

Taxiway A reconstruction, Acquire

snow removal equipment: rotary blower,

front end loader with plow, truck with

plow, truck with plow dump box and

spreader, Construct taxiway J connector.

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 Outagamie

County Airport, W6390 Challenger

Drive, Suite 201, Appleton, WI 54915.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on May 12,

1998.

Benito De Leon,

Manager, Planning and Programming Branch,

Airports Division, Great Lakes Region.

[FR Doc. 98–13265 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3851]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision that Nonconforming 1995

Mercedes-Benz C280 Passenger Cars

Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1995

Mercedes-Benz C280 passenger cars are

eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that a 1995 MercedesBenz C280 that was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards is eligible for importation into

the United States because (1) it is

substantially similar to a vehicle that

was originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and that was certified by its

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards, and (2) it is capable of

being readily altered to conform to the

standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. [Docket hours are from 10 am to

5 pm].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards shall be refused admission

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Wallace Environmental Testing

Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas

(‘‘Wallace’’) (Registered Importer 90–

005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide

whether 1995 Mercedes-Benz C280

passenger cars are eligible for

importation into the United States. The

vehicle which Wallace believes is

substantially similar is the 1995

Mercedes-Benz C280 that was

manufactured for importation into, and

sale in, the United States and certified

by its manufacturer, Daimler Benz, A.G.,

as conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared the non-U.S. certified 1995

Mercedes-Benz C280 to its U.S. certified

counterpart, and found the two vehicles

to be substantially similar with respect

to compliance with most Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Wallace submitted information with

its petition intended to demonstrate that

the non-U.S. certified 1995 MercedesBenz C280, as originally manufactured,

conforms to many Federal motor vehicle

safety standards in the same manner as

its U.S. certified counterpart, or is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to those standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

the non-U.S. certified 1995 MercedesBenz C280 is identical to its U.S.

certified counterpart with respect to

compliance with Standards Nos. 102

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

* * * , 103 Defrosting and Defogging

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and

Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic

Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109