Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40779

15000 Aviation Blvd., Room 3024,

Lawndale, CA 90261.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Jerald K.

Lee, Deputy Executive Director at the

following address, Los Angeles World

Airports, 1 World Way, Los Angeles, CA

90045–5803.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Los Angeles

World Airports under section 158.23 of

Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Milligan, Supervisor, Standards

Section, Airports Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, 15000

Aviation Blvd., Room 3024, Lawndale,

CA 90261, telephone (310) 725–3621.

The request may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the request to amend the

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC at Los Angeles

International 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 June 3, 1998, the FAA received the

request to amend the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the Los Angeles World

Airports within the requirements of

section 158.37(b) of Part 158. The FAA

will approve or disapprove the

amendment no later than October 2,

1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the request.

PFC amendment number: PFC No.

97–04–C–01–LAX.

Proposed increase in the total

estimated PFC revenue: From

$150,000,000 to $440,000,000.

Proposed change in estimated charge

expiration date: From March 31, 2000 to

January 31, 2004.

Proposed altered description of

approved project: The Noise Mitigation

project is modified to decrease

residential soundproofing in the city of

Los Angeles by approximately 2,557

units and to increase the amount of land

to be acquired for noise mitigation

purposes by 90 acres or 563 parcels.

Any person may inspect the request

in person at the FAA office listed above

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Hawthorne, CA on July 6, 1998.

Herman C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 98–20344 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application

to 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 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 August 31, 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

of the 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 use the

revenue from a PFC at the 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 July 13, 1998, the

FAA determined that the application to

use the revenue from a PFC submitted

by the Monterey Peninsula Airport

District was substantially complete

within the requirements of § 158.25 of

Part 158. The FAA will approve or

disapprove the application, in whole or

in part, no later than October 13, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of the

use application No. 96–03–U–00–MRY:

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date:

January 1, 1994.

Proposed charge expiration date: June

1, 2002.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$396,006.

Brief description of proposed projects:

Westside Access Connection to Garden

Road (Sky Park Way Connection to

Garden Road); Environmental Impact

Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for ‘‘New Northside’’

Ground Access Road (Environmental

Assessment (EA)/EIR for Airport Road

Extension); ‘‘New Northside’’ Ground

Access Road (Airport Road Extension);

and ‘‘Old Northside’’ Road Relocation

(Airport Road Realignment).

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 office located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, 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 July

14, 1998.

Herman C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 98–20343 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Los

Angeles County, California

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.
40780 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices

ACTION: Amended notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

amended notice to advise the public

that an environmental impact statement

will not be prepared for a proposed

highway project in Los Angeles County,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

C. Glenn Clinton, Chief, District

Operations—South, Federal Highway

Administration, 980—9th Street, Suite

400, Sacramento, CA 95814–2724;

Telephone: (916) 498–5037.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No federal

funding is proposed to be used by the

City of Santa Clarita to construct the

extension of Magic Mountain Parkway

(State Route 126) from west of San

Fernando Road to Via Princessa (2.5

miles) and to construct the extension of

Via Princessa from Magic Mountain

Parkway to Rainbow Glen Drive (1.7

miles). Since there is no federal action

for the proposed project, the preparation

of an environmental impact statement

(EIS) to satisfy the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 will not be needed.

Thus this amended notice is to rescind

the earlier notice which was published

in the Federal Register on February 24,

1998 (63 FR 9293).

Per the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of

Preparation on an Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) for this project was

published on February 12, 1997 and a

45-day public comment period followed

from February 12, 1997 to March 31,

1997, including a Public Scoping

Meeting held on March 5, 1997. In

addition to the comment period and

scoping meeting, three public meetings

were conducted by the City of Santa

Clarita in November 1996. The public

and review agencies have had the

opportunity to comment on the scope

and content of the project.

Issued on: July 9, 1998.

C. Glenn Clinton,

Chief, District Operations—South,

Sacramento, California.

[FR Doc. 98–20317 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3129; Notice 2]

Ford Motor Company; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Ford Motor Company, Dearborn,

Michigan, has estimated that

approximately 853,000 of its 1995–1997

Ford Explorer and 1997 Mercury

Mountaineer multipurpose passenger

vehicles with console armrests fail to

comply with 49 CFR 571.302, Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 302, ‘‘Flammability of Interior

Materials,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

On September 11, 1997, Ford applied to

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’

on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

On November 25, 1997, NHTSA

published a notice of receipt of the

application in the Federal Register (62

FR 62798) and requested comments on

it. The agency received no comments.

FMVSS No. 302, Paragraphs S4.2 and

S4.3, specify that any portion of a single

or composite material which is within

1⁄2 inch of the occupant compartment air

space, when tested in accordance with

paragraph S5, shall not burn, nor

transmit a flame across its surface, at a

rate of more than 4 inches per minute.

Composite is defined as a material that

adheres to other material(s) at every

point of contact. FMVSS No. 302’s burn

rate testing requires a 4-inch wide by

14-inch long sample, wherever possible

(S5.2).

The Ford Explorer and Mercury

Mountaineer armrests have multi-layer

cover materials: a 1.5mm thick exterior

cover, a 2mm thick second layer

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate/Polyethylene

(EVA/PE), referred to in the application

as ‘‘plus pad,’’ a 13mm thick third layer

foam bun pad, and a 3mm

polycarbonate substratum. The subject

of Ford’s application is the 2mm thick

‘‘plus pad’’ layer.

Ford acknowledged that the ‘‘plus

pad’’ material does not adhere to its

1.5mm exterior cover material or the

13mm foam bun under it at every point

of contact. Therefore, as specified in

FMVSS No. 302, the ‘‘plus pad’’

material cannot be tested with other

materials as a composite material and

has to be tested separately. Ford

reported that when the ‘‘plus pad’’

material was tested separately, it

showed a burn rate range from 8 to 10

inches per minute—a noncompliance

with FMVSS No. 302. Ford stated that

all other affected materials in the

armrest satisfy the 4-inch per minute

maximum burn rate. Ford explained

that the supplier of the ‘‘plus pad’’

material only ‘‘certified’’ the raw

material for FMVSS No. 302 by testing

11mm thick samples, not the designed

2mm thickness.

Ford supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

A. Ford stated that the FMVSS No.

302 burn rate testing requirement of

cutting a sample from the ‘‘normal

configuration and packaging in the

vehicle’’ is conservative in regard to the

actual fire spreading potential of the

tested material.

B. The 2mm ‘‘plus pad’’ failed the

FMVSS No. 302 test requirements when

tested as a single material. However, a

series of further testing demonstrates

that the noncompliance does not

adversely affect occupant safety because

it does not increase the burn rates of the

assembly or the adjacent materials in

the assembly to levels higher than

specified by FMVSS No. 302.

C. The ‘‘plus pad’’ accounts for less

than 10 percent of the armrest material

and is an insignificant percentage of the

vehicle’s remaining materials. All other

flammable interior materials of the

subject vehicles complied with FMVSS

No. 302. Therefore, the noncompliance

of the ‘‘plus pad’’ offers an insignificant

portion of interior materials that could

potentially support an interior fire.

Ford attached the following summary

results of several alternative tests,

including a ‘‘worst case scenario’’ test:

1. FMVSS No. 302 type tests (cover,

plus pad, and foam)—treated the

assembly materials as a composite

material.

2. FMVSS No. 302 type tests (cover,

plus pad, and foam)—added simulations

of cut and torn of the materials:

a. Cut the cover layer longitudinally,

b. Cut a hole in the cover layer, and

c. Cut through the cover layer and the

‘‘plus pad’’ longitudinally.

3. FMVSS No. 302 type tests (plus pad

and foam)—with the cover layer

completely removed to simulate a worst

case scenario.

4. Cut a complete armrest assembly in

half along the lateral-vertical plane:

a. Exposed the opposite of the cut end

to the flame, and

b. Exposed the cut cross-section to the

flame.

All test results were less than FMVSS

No. 302’s maximum permissible 4-inch

per minute burn rate, thereby meeting

the standard.

In conclusion, Ford requested NHTSA

to grant the inconsequentiality petition

since the ‘‘plus pad’’ complied with

FMVSS No. 302’s requirements in every

other test except that when tested by

itself. Ford’s request was based on the

fact that the ‘‘plus pad’’ represents an

insignificant adverse effect on interior

material burn rate and the potential for