28024 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

Tuesday, June 9, 1998

• General Structures HWG Report.

• Electromagnetic Effects HWG

Report.

• Loads & Dynamics HWG Report.

• Airworthiness Assurance HWG

Report.

• Hydraulic Test HWG Report and

Vote.

• Brake Systems Harmonization

Working Group (if needed).

• Review Action Items.

The Systems Design and Analysis

HWG is requesting a vote for formal

FAA economic and legal review of a

draft notice and advisory circular

relating to a review of 14 CFR 25.1309,

European Joint Aviation Requirements

(JAR) 25.1309, associated Advisory

Circular 25.1309–1A, and Advisory

Circulars Joint Numbers 1 through 8.

The Hydraulic Test HWG is requesting

a vote for the acceptance of a

disposition of comments to Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking No. 96–6. The

proposed rulemaking would amend the

airworthiness standards for transport

category airplanes to harmonize

hydraulic systems design and test

requirements with standards proposed

for the JAR.

Attendance is open to the public, but

will be limited to the space available.

Arrangements may be made to present

statements, request the public must

make arrangements by June 1, 1998, to

present oral statements at the meeting.

Written statements may be presented to

the Committee at any time by providing

25 copies to the Assistant Executive

Director for Transport Airplane and

Engine issues or by providing copies at

the meeting. Copies of the documents to

be voted upon may be made available by

contacting the person listed under the

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Sign and oral interpretation can be

made available at the meeting, as well

as an assistive listening device, if

requested 10 calendar days before the

meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 13,

1998.

Joseph A. Hawkins,

Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 98–13519 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Intent To Rule on PFC Application (98–

03–I–00–OTH) To Impose Only a

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at

North Bend Municipal Airport;

Submitted by the City of North Bend,

North Bend, Oregon

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 only a PFC at

North Bend Municipal Airport under

the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and

part 158 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: J. Wade Bryant, Manager;

Seattle airports District Office, SEA–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Suite 250;

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Om addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Gary Le

Tellier, Airport Manager, at the

following address: City of North Bend,

P.O. Box B, North Bend, OR 97459.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to North Bend

Municipal airport under section 158.23

of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Mary Vargas, (425) 227–2660;

Seattle Airports District Office, SEA–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Suite 250;

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 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 (98–03–I–

00–OTH) to impose only a PFC at North

Bend Municipal Airport, under the

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR Part 158).

On May 13, 1998, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose only a PFC submitted by the

City of North Bend, Oregon, 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 August 22, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: June 1,

1998.

Proposed charge expiration date:

January 1, 2001.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$136,800.

Brief description of proposed

projects—(Impose Only): East Side.

Terminal Area Site Preparation; and

East Airport Roadway Alignment, and

Runway 13—31 Safety Area.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Non-scheduled

air taxi/commercial operators utilizing

aircraft having a seating capacity of less

than 20 passengers not to be required to

collect PFCs.

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 Office located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Northwest Mountain Regional Office,

Airports Division, 1601 Lind Avenue,

S.W., Suite 315; Renton, Washington

98055–4056.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice,

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the North Bend

Municipal Airport, North Bend, Oregon.

Issued in Renton, Washington on May 134,

1998.

David A. Field,

Manager, Planning, Programming and

Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain

Region.

[FR Doc. 98–13576 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3701; Notice 1]

Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America Inc.;

Receipt of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America

(MMSA) of Cypress, California, has

determined that some of its 1994–1998

models fail to meet the requirements of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 118, ‘‘S4,’’ and has filed

an appropriate report pursuant to 49

CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defects and

Noncompliance Reports.’’ MMSA has

also applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle

Safety’’ on the basis that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 28025

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application.

During the periods indicated below,

the applicant imported and sold and/or

distributed approximately 57,294

vehicles equipped with power sunroofs

that did not meet certain requirements

mandated by Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 118 requires

that power windows, partitions, and

sunroofs only be operable under certain

circumstances. One of those

circumstances specifies that a power

sunroof may operate:

during the interval between the time the

locking device which controls the activation

of the vehicle’s engine is turned off and the

opening of either of a two-door vehicle’s

doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more

than two doors, the opening of either of its

front doors. 49 CFR 571.118 S4(e) states that

once the ignition key is turned off and either

of the two front doors is opened, the power

sunroof must not operate.

In the Mitsubishi vehicles identified

below, activation of the power sunroof

stops immediately after the ignition is

turned off and the driver’s side door is

open. The sunroof continues to operate,

however, for thirty seconds after the

ignition is turned off and the passenger

front door is opened. This continued

operation does not comply with the

requirements of S4 FMVSS No.118.

Make Line Model year No. of affected

vehicles

Dates of manufacture

MMC ................................................................ Mitsubishi 3000GT ......................................... 1994–98 5,855 5/94—4/98

MMC ................................................................ Mitsubishi Mirage (Coupe & Sedan) .............. 1997–98 1,383 6/96—5/98

Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America,

Inc.

Mitsubishi Galant ............................................ 1994–98 50,056 3/93—3/98

MMSA supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

MMSA does not believe that the foregoing

noncompliance will impact motor vehicle

safety for the following reasons, FMVSS 118

sets forth requirements for power operated

windows, partitions, and roof panel systems

(e.g., sunroofs) to minimize the risk of injury

or death from accidental operation of these

systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA or the Agency) has

identified children as the group of people

most likely at risk from unsupervised or

inadvertent operation of power windows and

sunroofs. See 57 FR 23958 (1992). In order

to address the foregoing concerns, FMVSS

118 S4 specifies the conditions under which

a power window, partition or sunroof may

operate. S4(e) specifically requires that

power windows, partitions and sunroofs not

be operational when the ignition key is off

and either one of the vehicle’s front doors is

opened. The power windows may continue

to operate after the ignition has been turned

off, but prior to the opening of either of the

vehicle’s front doors.

‘‘FMVSS 118 S4(e) was designed to reduce

the possibility of unsupervised children from

operating the power windows, partitions or

sunroofs in a vehicle. Specifically, S4(e) is

based on the logical presumption that after a

vehicle’s ignitions is turned off, but prior to

opening either of the vehicle’s front doors, an

adult will remain in the vehicle to supervise

and protect children from the safety risks

associated with operation of a power

window, partition, or sunroof system. Hence

there is little to no additional risk in allowing

continued operation of the power window,

partition or sunroof after the ignition is

turned off but prior to the opening of either

front door because of the presence of the

supervising adult. This premise is especially

true for the driver side door. In most

circumstances, and adult driver normally

exits the vehicle from the driver side door.

If the vehicle’s driver side door has not been

opened, the adult driver is most likely still

in the vehicle’’.

MMSA believes that the failure to

comply is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety for the following reasons:

‘‘The power sunroof immediately ceases to

operate when the ignition key is turned off

and the driver side door is open. The sunroof

will continue to operate, however, for

approximately 30 seconds after the ignition

key is turned off and the passenger side door

is open. The rationale supporting this feature

was to allow the driver to close the sunroof

even if the driver has turned off the ignition

and the passenger has opened the door and

exited the vehicle. This delay in operation

cut-off is a convenience feature similar to

those found in Japanese and European

versions of the affected Mitsubishi vehicles.

As long as the driver door remains closed,

the adult driver inevitably remains in the

vehicle to supervise any operation of the

power sunroof. It is highly unlikely that the

driver would exit from the front passenger

side in the affected vehicles. Each of the

vehicles listed above has a front seating

configuration consisting of two bucket type

seats and a center console that rises up from

the floor space between the driver and

passenger seats. The transmission shift lever

for these automatic and standard

transmission vehicles rises up from the

center console. The combination of bucket

seats, center console, and gear shift make

exiting the affected vehicles from the driver’s

side through the passenger side door

extremely difficult and highly unfeasible. In

addition, the period of operation for the

sunroof after the front passenger door is

extremely short (i.e., 30 seconds). This short

period of time is sufficient to allow drivers

to close the sunroof prior to exiting the

vehicle, but insufficient to cause any safety

concerns for children. Consequently,

continued, short-term operation of the

sunroof after the ignition has been turned off

and the passenger side door opened, but

prior to the opening of the driver’s side door,

does not pose any significant safety concern.

The probability of unsupervised children

being exposed to injury from the foregoing

sunroof system during the 30 seconds after

the ignition key has been turned off and the

front passenger door only is opened is nonexistent.’’

Additionally, MMSA asserts that the

situation is similar to another situation

involving vehicles manufactured by

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

(Volkswagen). In Volkswagen’s case, the

company manufactured approximately

20,000 vehicles with power windows.

The power windows ceased to operate

immediately after the ignition was

turned off and the driver’s size door was

opened. The windows continued to

operate, however, for ten minutes after

the ignition was turned off and the front

passenger door only was opened.

Volkswagen petitioned the Agency for a

determination of inconsequential

noncompliance. See 60 FR 26475

(1995). NHTSA granted the petition

based on reasons similar to those set

forth above by MMSA. See 60 FR 48197

(1995).

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of the

petitioner described above. Comments

should refer to the docket number and

be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in
28026 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

1AERC will acquire the track, ties, and other

improvements, and a permanent, irrevocable

easement to operate on this line, but not the real

estate.

1The Board will grant a stay if an informed

decision on environmental issues (whether raised

by a party or by the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis in its independent

investigation) cannot be made before the

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible

so that the Board may take appropriate action before

the exemption’s effective date.

2Each offer of financial assistance must be

accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is

set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: June 28, 1998.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: May 14, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–13520 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33567]

Albany & Eastern Railroad Company—

Acquisition and Operation

Exemption—The Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Company

Albany & Eastern Railroad Company

(AERC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified

notice of exemption under 49 CFR

1150.31 to acquire from The Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company (BNSF), and to operate 17.40

miles of rail line between MP–14.50, at

or near Lebanon, and MP–31.90, at or

near Foster, in Linn County, OR.1 AERC

also is acquiring incidental trackage

rights over Union Pacific Railroad

Company’s (UP) rail line between MP–

688.96, at or near Lebanon, and MP–

691.52, at or near Albany, and over

BNSF’s line between MP–0.0, at Albany,

and MP–0.89, east of Albany, in Linn

County, OR, a total of 13.62 miles. The

incidental trackage rights will permit

AERC to interchange traffic with BNSF

at its Albany yard.

The transaction was expected to be

consummated on or shortly after May 8,

1998.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33567, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each

pleading must be served on Fritz R.

Kahn, Suite 750 West, 1100 New York

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20005–

3934.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: May 14, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13593 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–494X]

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway

Company—Abandonment Exemption—

in Summit County, OH

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway

Company (ABCR) has filed a notice of

exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart

F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon

4.14 miles of its line of railroad from

Valuation Station 440 + 00 at Main

Street to Valuation Station 658 + 63 at

Seiberling Avenue, in Summit County,

OH. The line traverses United States

Postal Service Zip Codes 44301, 44305,

44300 and 44311.

ABCR has certified that: (1) no local

traffic has moved over the line for at

least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on

the line can be rerouted over other lines;

(3) no formal complaint filed by a user

of rail service on the line (or by a state

or local government entity acting on

behalf of such user) regarding cessation

of service over the line either is pending

with the Surface Transportation Board

(Board) or with any U.S. District Court

or has been decided in favor of

complainant within the 2-year period;

and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR

1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR

1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR

1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR

1105.12 (newspaper publication), and

49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to

governmental agencies) have been met.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employee adversely affected by the

abandonment shall be protected under

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment— Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979). To address whether this

condition adequately protects affected

employees, a petition for partial

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

must be filed. Provided no formal

expression of intent to file an offer of

financial assistance (OFA) has been

received, this exemption will be

effective on June 20, 1998, unless stayed

pending reconsideration. Petitions to

stay that do not involve environmental

issues,1 formal expressions of intent to

file an OFA under 49 CFR

1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking

requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be

filed by June 1, 1998. Petitions to reopen

or requests for public use conditions

under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by

June 10, 1998, with: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423. A

copy of any petition filed with the

Board should be sent to applicant’s

representative: Christopher E. V. Quinn,

Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Two

Prudential Plaza, 45 Floor, 180 North

Stetson Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio.

ABCR has filed an environmental

report which addresses the

abandonment’s effects, if any, on the

environment and historic resources. The

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) will issue an environmental

assessment (EA) by May 26, 1998.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of

the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500,

Surface Transportation Board,

Washington, DC 20423) or by calling

SEA, at (202) 565–1545. Comments on

environmental and historic preservation

matters must be filed within 15 days

after the EA becomes available to the

public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR

1152.29(e)(2), ABCR shall file a notice of

consummation with the Board to signify

that it has exercised the authority

granted and fully abandoned the line. If

consummation has not been effected by

ABCR’s filing of a notice of

consummation by May 21, 1999, and

there are no legal or regulatory barriers

to consummation, the authority to

abandon will automatically expire.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: May 8, 1998.