27592 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices

may present a written statement to the

committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18,

1995.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 95–12627 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–13–M

Notice of Intent To Rule on

Applications To Impose and Use the

Revenue From a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at John F. Kennedy

International Airport, Jamaica, NY;

LaGuardia Airport (LGA), Flushing, NY,

and Newark International Airport

(EWR), Newark, NJ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

applications.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC and to amend

previous PFC applications at JFK, LGA

and EWR Airports 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 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these

applications may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Mr. Philip Brito, Manager New

York Airports District Office, 600 Old

Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City,

New York, 11530.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. George J.

Marlin, Executive Director of the Port

Authority of New York & New Jersey at

the following address: One World Trade

Center, Suite 1973, New York, New

York 10048.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Port

Authority of New York & New Jersey

under § 158.23 of part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Philip Brito, Manager of the New

York Airports District Office, Manager

New York Airports District Office 600

Old Country Road, suite 446, Garden

City, NY, 11530. The applications may

be reviewed in person at this same

location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the applications to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at JFK,

LGA and EWR Airports as well as

applications to amend previous PFC

approvals at all three airports 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 8, 1995, the FAA determined

that the applications to impose and use

the revenue from a PFC submitted by

Port Authority of New York & New

Jersey were substantially complete

within the requirements of section

158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the applications,

in whole or in part, no later than July

9, 1995.

The following is a brief overview of

the applications.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00

Proposed charge effective date: October

1, 1995

Proposed charge expiration date: August

31, 2001

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$663,000,000

Brief description of proposed projects:

JFK Projects

—Automated Guideway Transit

System—Planning and Design To

impose and use an additional $38

million in PFC funds to reimburse the

Port Authority for $19 million in

planning previously authorized by the

Board of Commissioners, to complete

the planning studies for the AGT

system, and to advance the design

procurement and local permitting

efforts prior to the implementation

phase. Approximately $2 million of

this total is for planning studies for

the EWR Monorail-NEC (FGT) project

beyond the $7 million approved by

the FAA in 1992.

—Automated Guideway Transit

System—Howard Beach Component

To impose $325 million in PFC funds

for the remainder of the on-airport

portion of the AGT system at JFK.

This segment would extend from the

CTA to Federal Circle along the Van

Wyck and extend to serve the

employee parking lot, the long term

parking lots and the Howard Beach

subway station.

LGA Projects

—Automated Guideway Transit

System—On-Airport Component To

impose $61 million in PFCs to fund

a portion of the on-airport component

of the AGT system at LGA.

—Second Grand Central Parkway to

LGA Flyover To amend previous PFC

to withdraw this project.

EWR Projects

—EWR Monrail

To impose and use an additional $50

million, also to use $50 million in

PFCs already imposed, for the

construction of a monorail linking

various areas within the airport.

—Landside Access—Phase 1A

To impose and use $50 million for onairport roadway improvements and

modifications to reduce congestion.

—EWR I–78 Flyover

To amend previous PFC to withdraw

this project.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi,

except commuter air carriers.

Any person may inspect the

applications in person at the FAA office

listed above under ‘‘FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT’’ and at the FAA

regional Airports office located at:

Fitzgerald Federal Building, John F.

Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica,

New York, 11430.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the applications, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Port

Authority of New York & New Jersey.

Issued in Jamaica, New York on May

11, 1995.

William DeGraaff,

Manager, Planning & Programming Branch,

Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 95–1754 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA Docket Nos. PB–95–1 and SA–95–2]

MK Rail Corporation (MKRC) and CSX

Transportation, Inc. (CSXT)

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Change of hearing date.

SUMMARY: On May 5, 1995, FRA

published in the Federal Register a

Notice of Petition for Waivers or

Compliance (60 FR 22427) regarding the

future operations of a train known as the

‘‘Iron Highway.’’ FRA scheduled a

public hearing for May 25, 1995. Due to

scheduling constraints, FRA must

change the date of the public hearing.

As a consequence, FRA is rescheduling

the public hearing to June 29, 1995, in

room 4436 of the Nassif Building, DOT

Headquarters Building, 400 Seventh
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices 27593

Street SW., Washington, DC. We

apologize for any inconvenience this

rescheduling may cause.

DATES: A public hearing will be held at

10 a.m. on June 29, 1995.

ADDRESSES: A public hearing will be

held in room 4436 of the Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold Morick, Motive Power &

Equipment Division, Office of Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

366–4094), or Mark Tessler, Trial

Attorney, Office of Chief Council, FRA,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

DC 20590 (telephone 202–366–0628).

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18,

1995.

E.R. English,

Director, Office of Safety Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 95–12663 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 94–107; Notice 2]

Excalibur Automobile Corp.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Excalibur Automobile Corporation

(Excalibur) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

determined that some of its vehicles

failed to comply with the automatic

restraint system requirements of 49 CFR

571.208, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ‘‘Occupant

Crash Protection,’’ and filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Excalibur 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.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on January 5, 1995 (60

FR 1823). This notice grants the

application.

Paragraph S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 208

requires that vehicles manufactured on

or after September 1, 1989, be equipped

with a restraint system at each front

outboard designated seating position

that meets the standard’s frontal crash

protection requirements by means that

require no action by vehicle occupants.

This type of system is referred to as an

automatic restraint system.

Excalibur manufactured 59 model

year 1993, 1994, and 1995 JAC 427

Cobras without automatic restraint

systems. These vehicles all contain

Type 2, three-point harness active

restraint systems. However, as Excalibur

noted in its part 573 Report filed

concurrently with the application under

consideration, ‘‘36 JAC 427 Cobras are

in dealers’ possession and 15 have been

acquired by ultimate purchasers. The

remaining automobiles remain in the

possession of Excalibur.’’ NHTSA

granted Excalibur’s application for

temporary exemption on March 6, 1995

(60 FR 12281), an agency action that

covers the 36 unsold cars in dealer stock

and in Excalibur’s possession.

Therefore, only the 15 cars that have

been sold remain subject to the

application under consideration.

Excalibur supported its application

for inconsequential noncompliance with

the following. The 15 JAC 427 Cobras all

contain Type 2, three-point harness

active restraint systems. Bringing these

vehicles into compliance with

paragraph S4.1.4 of FMVSS 208 would

be very difficult from an engineering

perspective, and whatever feasible

solutions may be available, would most

likely result in significant expense for

Excalibur, a small financially-strapped

company.

As set forth below, Excalibur argued

that the overall safety risk from

noncompliance with paragraph S4.1.4 of

FMVSS 208 is inconsequential because

of (1) the vehicle’s specialized and

limited use and small number and (2)

Excalibur’s belief that Cobra owners

have a relatively high level of safety belt

use and (3) Excalibur’s proposal to boost

further Cobra safety belt use by placing

a warning label in the vehicle.

1. The Overall Safety Risk From

Noncompliance of Excalibur’s (15) JAC 427

Cobras With FMVSS 208 Is Inconsequential

Given Their Specialized And Limited Use

And Small Number

The JAC 427 Cobra is not an ordinary

passenger automobile designed for daily use.

It is a classically-styled automobile viewed as

a collector’s item by automobile

purchasers. * * * The JAC 427 Cobra is a

convertible which seats two persons, and has

a small trunk. As a result, it is not designed

to be used as a family’s primary passenger

vehicle. Instead, the JAC 427 Cobra is

typically driven only short distances from an

owner’s home. Owners of these (sic) type of

automobiles generally drive these

automobiles no more than 4000 miles per

year.

Excalibur has never planned to produce

many JAC 427 Cobras due to the limited

capacity of its manufacturing facilities and

the nature of its manufacturing process. For

example, the highest monthly total of JAC

427 Cobra automobiles ever produced was

17. Only 59 of these automobiles were

produced for sale in the U.S. between

January 1993 and September 1994, a 21-

month period. In 1995, Excalibur’s total

planned production is only 100–180 JAC 427

Cobras for sale worldwide, or no more than

15 per month. Of the 100–180, only 60% of

the JAC 427 Cobras, or 60–108, are proposed

for sale in the U.S.

The collector’s nature of the JAC 427

Cobra, the low number of miles that these

types of vehicles are driven on any consistent

basis, and the small number of actual JAC

427 Cobras that do not comply with FMVSS

208 illustrate the overall reduced safety risk

of these vehicles, especially when compared

to the overall risk posed by the average use

of the standard family passenger vehicle.

Thus, the total effect of the existence of only

(15) JAC 427 noncomplying automobiles—

which are meant for weekend pleasure

driving—is inconsequential in relation to the

overall level of motor vehicle safety in the

U.S.

2. The Safety Risk From Noncompliance Of

Excalibur’s (15) JAC 427 Cobras With FMVSS

208 Is Inconsequential Due To Probable

Existing Cobra Safety Belt Use And To

Excalibur’s Proposal To Boost Cobra Safety

Belt Use

The use of safety belts has been shown to

significantly reduce injuries and fatalities in

automobile crashes. See generally NHTSA,

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Occupant

Protection—FMVSS 208 Interim Report, June

1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Interim

Report’’). Use of safety belts has increased

dramatically since 1983 due to the enactment

of state mandatory safety belt laws and the

installation of automatic safety belt systems.

By May of 1992, 42 states plus the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico had enacted

laws requiring the use of safety belts. Interim

Report at v. Safety belt use overall increased

nationwide to nearly 59% in late 1991,

ranging from 24% in Mississippi to 83% in

Hawaii. NHTSA, Effectiveness of Occupant

Protection Systems and Their Use—Report to

Congress, January 1993. Manual safety belt

use nationwide reached 56% in 1991, and

may be even higher today due to increased

safety awareness. See Interim Report at viii.

An informal survey of Excalibur

automobile owners, including those of the

JAC 427 Cobra, revealed that these owners on

average are 45 year-old males with greater

incomes and higher levels of education than

the general population. Unlike youthful

segments of the population who are more

prone to reckless driving, Excalibur

automobile owners are predominantly

established, responsible people who value

their personal safety and the quality and

uniqueness of their investment in an

Excalibur automobile. As a result, Excalibur

opines that the owners of the JAC 427 Cobras

are more likely to be wearing a safety belt

while driving than other segments of the

population, such as young single males.

To ensure even higher safety belt use in its

JAC 427 Cobras, and thereby increase the

safety of the driver and passenger, Excalibur

proposes reminding in the strongest terms

possible both the driver and passenger of the

consequences of not using their safety belts.

Excalibur would accomplish this by posting

a warning label plainly and clearly visible to

both the driver and passenger which states as

follows: