26474 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scoping

A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS

was previously published in the Federal

Register on January 18, 1989. The

Scoping Process began with two public

scoping meetings on February 15, 1989.

An Administrative Draft EIS was

prepared in 1991 but was not circulated

due to lack of local funding

commitments for the project.

The project was held in abeyance

until March, 1993, when the PCJPB

conducted four public meetings to

solicit public input on key project

issues, including which alternatives

deserved further consideration. As a

result, the PCJPB, jointly with the

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission (MTC), conducted a study

to develop fundable extension

alternatives and system upgrades that

could be recommended by the PCJPB for

inclusion in the MTC’s financially

constrained Regional Transportation

Plan (RTP). The study evaluated nine

alternatives and the results were

reviewed in public meetings. In March,

1994, the PCJPB designated Alternative

8B (extension of CalTrain to an

underground terminal at Beale and

Market Streets) of that study as the

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for

inclusion in the RTP. This alternative

was subsequently included in the 1994

RTP adopted by MTC after extensive

public review. The PCJPB is now

resuming environmental studies for the

preparation of a Draft EIS/EIR for public

review and comment.

The public informational meetings

will announce resumption of

environmental studies. The

environmental process will be outlined,

and the public will be invited to become

involved in this process through the

Public Participation/Consensus

Building Program that will be

implemented for this project. The public

will be invited to comment on all

aspects of the project, including

alignments, station design, and the

environmental, social and economic

impacts to be analyzed. The public will

also be notified of future informational

meetings and workshops as the studies

progress.

II. Description of Study Area

The Peninsula Commute Service

traverses three counties (San Francisco,

San Mateo, and Santa Clara) from San

Francisco to Gilroy for a distance of

approximately 77 miles. However, most

of the proposed project is located in the

City of San Francisco, in an area

generally bounded by Market Street, the

Embarcadero, China Basin Channel,

Sixteenth Street, Seventh Street, Bryant

Street and Second Street. The primary

east-west corridors are along Brannan,

Townsend and King Streets; primary

north-south corridors are along Beale

Street and Colin P. Kelly/Essex Streets

(to the Transbay Terminal). The

proposed station location is at Beale and

Market Streets; however, the existing

Transbay Transit Terminal location will

also be evaluated in the envent the LPA

location proves infeasible.

III. Alternatives

Three alternatives with sub-options

emerged from the evaluation and public

involvement processes conducted

previously. These alternatives will be

evaluated in the DEIS/DEIR as follows:

• Alternative 1—No Build. The San

Francisco station would remain at 4th

and Townsend.

• Alternative 2 (The Proposed Project

[LPA])—CalTrain would be extended to

a station at Beale and Market Streets

with the following routing and fuel

options:

Option A—CalTrain would be routed

on the surface along Townsend Street to

4th Street, underground via cut and

cover under public streets from 4th

Street to Market and Beale Streets. King

and Brannan Streets, would be

considered should Townsend Street

prove infeasible. Full system

electrification is included in this option.

Option B—Same as Option A, except

existing locomotives with diesel power

would be used or would be converted to

liquified natural gas.

Option C—Same as Option A, except

that a direct mined or bored tunnel

alignment would be used from

approximately 3rd Street to

approximately Harrison and Beale

Streets under private properties in the

South Beach Area.

• Alternative 3—CalTrain would be

extended to a station at the existing

Transbay Transit Terminal location. The

PCS would be routed on the surface

along Townsend Street, underground

via cut and cover and/or mined tunnel

to Folsom/Essex Streets and from there

to a new or rehabilitated Transbay

Transit Terminal. King or Brannan

Streets would be considered should

Townsend prove infeasible. Full system

electrification is included in this

alternative.

IV. Probable Effects

Impacts proposed for analysis include

changes in the physical environment

(air quality, noise, water quality,

geology, visual); changes in the social

environment (land use, business

disruptions, and neighborhoods);

changes in traffic and pedestrian

circulation; impacts on parklands and

historic sites; changes in transit service

and partonage; associated changes in

highway congestion; capital, operating

and maintenance costs; and financial

implications. Impacts will be identified

both for the construction period and for

the long term operation of the

alternatives. The proposed evaluation

criteria include transportation,

environmental, social, economic and

financial measures as required by

current Federal (NEPA) and State

(CEQA) environmental laws and current

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) and FTA guidelines. Mitigating

measures will be explored for adverse

impacts that are identified.

Issued on: May 12, 1995.

Stewart F. Taylor,

Region IX Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12165 Filed 5–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M

Maritime Administration

[Docket S–920]

Kadampanattu Corp.; Notice of

Application for Temporary Written

Consent Pursuant to Section 506 of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as

Amended, for the Temporary Transfer

of the M/V STRONG/AMERICAN to the

Domestic Trade

Notice is hereby given that Allen

Freight Trailer Bridge (ATFB), by letter

of April 25, 1995, requested written

consent pursuant to section 506 of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended

(Act), to temporarily transfer during the

year commencing October 31, 1995, the

construction-differential subsidy (CDS)

built, M/V STRONG/AMERICAN,

exclusively to the domestic trade for a

period not to exceed six months in any

year period. The M/V STRONG/

AMERICAN is an integrated tug barge

unit, built in the United States with the

aid of CDS, and owned by

Kadampanattu Corp., an affiliate of

ATFB.

ATFB states that it operates a weekly

RO/RO barge service between

Jacksonville, Florida, and San Juan,

Puerto Rico, utilizing two RO/RO barges

owned by Kadampanattu Corp., the

JAX-SAN JUAN BRIDGE and SAN

JUAN-JAX BRIDGE. Each of these barges

will require regulatory drydocking and

repairs prior to February 28, 1996.

AFTB explains that the M/V

STRONG/AMERICAN has a capacity

equivalent of 56 percent of the RO/RO

barges to be drydocked. The STRONG/

AMERICAN will require drydocking at

considerable expense before it can be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices 26475

placed in service, and without the

requested waiver, such funds will not be

expended. AFTB explains that the

waiver sought herein would allow

AFTB the necessary flexibility to

complete drydocking and repairs to the

RO/RO barges without disrupting the

weekly service which is currently

provided to the shipping public.

Any person, firm, or corporation

having any interest in the application

for section 506 consent and desiring to

submit comments concerning

Kadampanattu Corp.’s request must by

5:00 p.m. on May 30, 1995, file written

comments in triplicate, to the Secretary,

Maritime Administration, Room 7210,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. The

Maritime Administration, as a matter of

discretion, will consider any comments

submitted and take such action as may

be deemed appropriate.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 20.800 Construction-Differential

Subsidies (CDS))

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: May 11, 1995.

Murray A. Bloom,

Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–12093 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 95–39; Notice 1]

Volkswagen of America, Inc.; Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA)

of Auburn Hills, Michigan, has

determined that some of its vehicles fail

to comply with the power window

requirements of 49 CFR 571.118,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 118, ‘‘Power-Operated

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel

Systems,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

VWoA 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 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.

Paragraph S4(e) in FMVSS No. 118

states that power operated windows

may be closed only ‘‘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 its

front doors.’’

During the period of September 1,

1992 through March 5, 1995, VWoA

manufactured approximately 1,200 1995

GTI vehicles and 18,795 1993–1995 Jetta

III vehicles that do not comply with the

power window requirements of FMVSS

No. 118. The power windows in the

subject vehicles can be operated when

the ignition key is in the ‘‘off’’ position

and the passenger side front door has

been opened. The windows should not

be able to be operated in this scenario.

VWoA supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

The purpose of the requirement in S4(e) of

FMVSS 118 specifying that the power

window system not be functional if the

ignition key is in the ‘‘off’’ position and one

of the front doors have been opened, is to

reduce the possibility of unsupervised

children operating the power windows in the

vehicle. S4(e) is based upon the assumption

that before one of the front doors has been

opened, an adult remains in the vehicle to

supervise and protect children from the

safety risks associated with the operation of

the power window system. S4(e) further

assumes that after one of the front vehicle

doors has been opened, no adult remains in

the vehicle and thereby creates a risk that

children remaining in the vehicle may injure

themselves by activating operational power

windows without supervision. S4(e) seeks to

eliminate that risk.

In the case of the affected vehicles, the

power windows cease to be operable if the

driver door is opened, but remain operational

for a period of 10 minutes after the passenger

side front door has been opened. The

rationale supporting the 10 minute period is

to allow the driver to close any open

windows even though he may already have

turned off the ignition and the passenger may

have opened to door and exited the vehicle.

It is a convenience feature permitted by law

in Europe and offered by Volkswagen to the

market in Europe as a convenience feature.

The power-operated roof panel systems

cannot be operated after the ignition key has

been turned off.

VWoA believes that its European

configuration inadvertently built into certain

vehicles delivered in the United States does

not affect their safety in a discernible way.

VWoA believes that as long as the driver door

of the vehicle has not been opened, a person

of driving age inevitably remains in the

vehicle because the exiting of the driver on

the passenger side front door is extremely

difficult and therefore unlikely. The affected

vehicles are equipped with bucket seats and

a center transmission console which cause

the movement of the driver to the passenger

side of the vehicle without contortion to be

difficult and virtually impossible. Also, it

makes no sense to suggest that a driver would

exit the vehicle on the passenger side of a

vehicle with bucket seats and [a] floor

mounted transmission lever when he can

conveniently open the driver’s door for exit.

VWoA has received no customer

compliants or claims relating to the ability of

the windows to operate after the passenger

door has been opened.

It should also be noted that the

Volkswagen Owner’s Manual contains an

express warning against leaving children

unattended in a vehicle and against misuse

of the ignition key. The warning reads as

follows:

WARNING

Do not leave children unattended in the

vehicle especially with access to vehicle

keys. Unsupervised use of the keys can result

in starting of the engine and use of vehicle

systems such as the power windows and

power sunroof, which could result in serious

personal injury.

As explained, the probability of

unsupervised children being exposed to

injury from power-operated window systems

during the 10 minute interval after the

ignition key has been turned off and the

passenger side front door is opened and

before the driver side front door is opened,

is non-existent and that therefore this

noncompliance is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety.

VWoA requests that this [application] be

granted so that an unnecessary and costly

consumer recall action [can] be avoided.

VWoA expects a particularly low owner

response to such a recall, if it were

undertaken, because the ability to operate the

power windows after the front passenger side

door has been opened would likely be

viewed by the owner to offer a valuable

convenience feature without any apparent

safety disadvantage.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of VWoA,

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, D.C., 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

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: June 16, 1995.

(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)