37612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

Information Items

1. Amendments to make certain

changes to resolutions on March 2,

1998, relating to the sale of the

Tennessee Valley Authority Power

Bonds.

2. Delegation of authority to the Vice

President, Fuel Supply and Engineering,

or a designated representative, to

modify three coal contracts (Sextet

Mining Company, Warrier Coal

Corporation, and Peabody COALSALES

Company) resulting from renegotiation

under each contract’s reopener

provision.

3. Grant of permanent easements to

the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, for

the expansion of the Chattanooga/

Hamilton County Convention and Trade

Center and a proposed conferencing

center (Tract No. XCOFC–3E)

(approximately 1.58 acres) and Tract

No. XTCOFC–8E (approximately 0.76

acre).

4. TVA Contribution to the TVA

Retirement System for Fiscal Year 1999.

5. TVA retiree medical contributions

for persons covered by the Civil Service

Retirement System and the Federal

Employees Retirement System.

6. Amendments to the Rules and

Regulations of the TVA Retirement

System and the provision of the TVA

Savings and Deferral Retirement Plan

(401(k) Plan).

7. Grant of a permanent easement to

Rhea County Economic and Tourism

Council, Inc, for the construction,

operation, and maintenance of a

building, affecting approximately 1.90

acres of land on Chickamauga Lake in

Rhea County, Tennessee (Tract No.

XTCR–194B).

8. Contract with Mee Industries

Incorporated to design, furnish, and

install fogging evaporative inlet cooling

systems for the entire fleet of 48

combustion turbines.

For more information: Please call

TVA Public Relations at (423) 632–6000,

Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is

also available at TVA’s Washington

Office (202) 898–2999.

Dated: July 8, 1998.

Edward S. Christenbury,

General Counsel and Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18673 Filed 7–9–98; 8:48 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. OST 98–4025]

Request for Public Comment on

Competitive Issues Affecting the

Domestic Airline Industry

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Federal

Aviation Administration, United States

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation is gathering information

on airport practices and whether they

may affect competition among air

carriers. We intend to meet with airport

and airline professional associations

and other interested participants, review

data and information provided by

industry organizations, review of

comments filed in this docket, and use

other means as appropriate.

Specifically, we seek to determine: (1)

Whether airports have used Passenger

Facility Charges in ways that have

enhanced competition; (2) whether the

types of issues raised in complaints to

the Department regarding airport

practices have prevented competition

among air carriers; (3) whether leasing

agreements and financing arrangements

at airports limit access and thus

competition; and (4) whether airport

planning, development, and commercial

practices limit access.

DATES: Comments should be received by

September 1, 1998. Comments that are

received after that date will be

considered to the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST–98–

4025, Room PL–401, United States

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street, SW, Washington DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please contact James New (202–366–

4868) or Larry Phillips (202–366–4382)

for additional information on the scope

of the Department’s study or the name

of the individual in DOT who is in the

best position to answer your questions.

A copy of this Notice can be obtained

via the World Wide Web at: http://

www.dot.gov/ost/aviation/. Comments

placed in the docket will be available

for viewing on the Internet.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Deregulation of the domestic airline

industry has resulted in enormous

benefits for the traveling public.

Average air fares (adjusted for inflation)

have declined approximately one-third

since 1978, and airline service has

improved in the vast majority of

markets. Despite the overall success of

deregulation, however, questions

remain as to whether certain conditions

and institutional arrangements are

preventing the industry from being as

competitive as it could be. For example,

several studies, including those

performed by DOT staff, have found fare

premiums at certain airports where

market concentration is high and where

new entrant air carriers have either not

attempted or have been largely

unsuccessful in establishing a

significant market presence. In other

instances, new entrant air carriers have

encountered problems in gaining access

to the range of airport facilities that

would allow them to challenge

incumbent air carriers.

Competition is a dynamic process,

especially in the airline industry.

Competition works best, however, when

carriers are able to enter and exit

markets in response to changing market

conditions. Air carriers are only able to

raise fares above competitive levels

when competitors are unable to enter a

market or to expand service. We

recognize that the ability of an air

carrier to provide new service at an

airport depends on numerous factors,

including the expected growth in

passenger demand, the ability to gain

access to gates and other critical

facilities, the cost and marketing

advantages incumbent air carriers enjoy,

and the size of the irreversible (‘‘sunk’’)

investment an entrant would incur if it

were forced to withdraw from the

market.

Our objective is to gather information

and data about current market

conditions at airports. We are not

investigating compliance or judging

business practices. We welcome

comments from all interested parties,

including state and local officials,

airport operators, air carriers,

academics, financial experts, and the

traveling public. Our goal is to have a

final report completed by February

1999.

We are interested in obtaining

information that would help us answer

the following questions: (1) What is the

exact nature of the airport (landside)

constraints air carriers have

encountered when attempting to enter a

market or expand service? (2) Have

these constraints been so significant as

to preclude entry at certain airports? (3)

What is the exact nature and

competitive significance of the

complaints that have been raised against

current airport practices? (4) Do leasing

practices and financing agreements at

airports limit access and discourage

entry? (5) Are airport financing practices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37613

changing in ways that will allow

airports to have greater control over how

they allocate gates? (6) Have airport

projects funded through Passenger

Facility Charges been successful in

promoting competition? Why or why

not? (7) What actions have airports

taken to promote entry? (8) How do

Majority-in-Interest Agreements affect

the competitive environment at

airports? (9) Is there a trend away from

long-term, exclusive-use gate leases?

(10) Have airports reallocated gates

away from incumbent carriers

(‘‘recapture’’ provisions) in ways that

promote entry? (11) Do airports involve

themselves in monitoring subleasing/

use agreements among air carriers? (12)

Do airports attempt to ensure that prices

charged for subleased facilities or

ancillary services are reasonable? (13) Is

there any evidence that established air

carriers are transferring access to airport

facilities among themselves in ways that

affect competition? (14) Are there

reasons to retain current airport

practices even if they adversely affect

competition?

Issued in Washington, D.C., July 8, 1998.

Rosalind A Knapp,

Deputy General Counsel, Department of

Transportation.

Susan L. Kurland,

Assistant Administrator for Airports, Federal

Aviation Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18615 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG–1998–4022]

In the Matter of Union Pacific (Formerly

Known as Southern Pacific

Transportation Company)

AGENCY: United States Coast Guard,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed penalty;

opportunity to comment.

SUMMARY: The United States Coast

Guard gives notice of and provides an

opportunity to comment on the

proposed assessment of a Class II

administrative penalty to Union Pacific,

formerly known as Southern Pacific

Transportation Company, for violations

of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (FWPCA). The alleged violations

involved the discharge of approximately

1012 barrels of oil into the waters of

Buffalo Bayou, Houston, Texas and

adjoining shorelines from September 25,

1995 to September 29, 1996. Interested

persons may participate or file

comments in this proceeding.

DATES: Filings in this matter must be

received not later than August 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons must

submit all filings in this matter to the

Hearing Docket Clerk. Filings should

reference ALG Docket number 98–0001–

CIV.

If you file by mail, the address is

Hearing Docket Clerk, Administrative

Law Judge Docketing Center, United

States Coast Guard, 40 South Gay Street,

Room 412, Baltimore, Maryland 21202–

4022.

If you file by fax, then send to (410)

962–1762.

If you file in person, then deliver the

filings to the same address at room 412

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The public may inspect the

administrative record for this Class II

civil penalty proceeding at the same

address and times.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

George J. Jordan, Director of Judicial

Administration, Office of the Chief

Administrative Law Judge,

Commandant (G–CJ), U.S. Coast Guard,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001, Telephone (202) 267–

2940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proceeding is a Class II civil penalty

proceeding brought under section 311(b)

of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended

by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33

U.S.C. 1321(b)). The FWPCA requires

that the Coast Guard publish notice of

the proposed issuance of an order

assessing a Class II civil penalty in the

Federal Register.

If you wish to be an interested person,

you must file written comments on the

proceeding or written notice of intent to

present evidence at any hearing held in

this Class II civil penalty proceeding

with the Hearing Docket Clerk. You

must file not later than August 12, 1998.

The following table explains how

interested persons may participate in a

Class II civil penalty proceeding.

If Then

A hearing is

scheduled.

You will be given

• Notice of any hearing.

• A reasonable opportunity

to be heard and to present

evidence during any hearing.

• Notice and a copy of the

decision. 33 CFR 20.404.

If Then

The proceeding is concluded without a hearing.You may petition the Commandant of the Coast

Guard to set aside the

order and to provide a

hearing.

You must file the petition

within 30 days after

issuance of the administrative law judge’s order. 33

CFR 20.1102.

You can find the regulations

concerning Class II civil penalty

proceedings in 33 CFR Part 20.

This proceeding (ALJ Docket Number:

98–0001–CIV) results from an alleged

discharge of approximately 1012 barrels

of oil into Buffalo Bayou, Houston,

Texas and adjoining shorelines

beginning on or about September 25,

1995, and continuing through and

including September 29, 1995. The

Coast Guard filed the Complaint on June

1, 1998, at New Orleans, LA.

The Respondent is Union Pacific

(formerly known as Southern Pacific

Transportation Company), 808 Travis,

Suite 620, Houston, Texas 77001.

The Coast Guard seeks a civil penalty

of $50,000.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

George J. Jordan,

Director of Judicial Administration, Office of

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, United

States Coast Guard.

[FR Doc. 98–18555 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA–97–2287; MC–96–40]

Motor Carrier Regulatory Relief and

Safety Demonstration Project;

Modifications

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is extending the

application period for the Motor Carrier

Regulatory Relief and Safety

Demonstration Project (Project),

published in the Federal Register on

June 10, 1997. The agency is also

seeking public comment upon proposed

modifications to the entry criteria and

reporting requirements of the Project. In

the June 1997 notice, the FHWA

indicated that it would later publish

additional information clarifying the

eligibility criteria and application

process. This notice is that clarifying

document and proposes to provide

additional incentives to participating