Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12281

Issued in Washington, DC on February 23,

1995.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Assistant Executive Director, Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee on Air

Traffic Issues.

[FR Doc. 95–5417 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

to Impose and Use the Revenue From

a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at

Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy

Field, Submitted by Pitkin County,

Aspen, CO

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 and use PFC

revenue at Aspen-Pitkin County

Airport/Sardy Field under the

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

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Alan E. Wiechmann, Manager;

Denver Airports District Office, DEN–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

5440 Roslyn, Suite 300; Denver, CO

80216–6026.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Scott

Smith, Director of Aviation, at the

following address: Aspen-Pitkin County

Airport/Sardy Field, 0233 East Airport

Road, Aspen, CO 81611.

Air Carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to Aspen-Pitkin

County Airport/Sardy Field, under

§ 158.23 of part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jim Fels, (303) 286–5596; Denver

Airports District Office, DEN–ADO;

Federal Aviation Administration; 5440

Roslyn, Suite 300; Denver, Colorado

80216–6026. 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 impose

and use PFC revenue at Aspen-Pitkin

County Airport/Sardy Field, under the

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

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 158).

On June 16, 1993, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by Pitkin County was not

substantially complete within the

requirements of part 158. Pitkin County

was notified by letter dated June 16,

1993, of this determination, with a

request for information which would

have allowed the application to meet

the requirements of part 158. By letter

dated June 30, 1993, Pitkin County

declined to provide the supplemental

information requested. A decision was

made by the FAA to defer action on the

application pending resolution of

Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA)

issues. With the passage of Section 517

of Public Law 103–305 and the opening

of the airport to night access by general

aviation aircraft, under the conditions

specified in this legislation, the ANCA

issues have been resolved. This allows

the FAA to make, at this time, a

determination of substantially complete

on this application. There has been no

change to the original application.

On February 27, 1995, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the Aspin-Pitkin County

Airport 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 June 4, 1995.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00

Proposed charge effective date: July 1,

1995

Proposed charge expiration date:

January 31, 1998

Total estimated PFC revenues:

$1,533,541.00

Brief description of proposed project:

Relocate State Highway 82; Overlay

runway 15/33.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFC’s: Air taxi/

commercial operators operating

pursuant to § 135.1(a)(3) of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR).

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 Region, Airports

Division, ANM–600, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Suite 540, Renton, WA 98055–

4056.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the AspenPitkin County Airport.

Issued in Renton, Washington on February

27, 1995.

David A. Field,

Manager, Planning, Programming and

Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain

Region.

[FR Doc. 95–5418 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 94–100; Notice 2]

Excalibur Automobile Corporation;

Grant of Application for Temporary

Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208

Excalibur Automobile Corporation of

West Allis, Wisconsin, applied for a

temporary exemption of its JAC 427

Cobra passenger car for three years from

compliance with paragraph S4.1.4 of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. The

basis of the application was that

compliance would cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried to comply with the

standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on December 28, 1994,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (59 FR 66999). This notice

grants the application.

The applicant sought an exemption

for its JAC 427 Cobra passenger car, of

which it produced 59 between January

1993 and September 1994. Thirty-six of

these ‘‘are presently in the control of

Excalibur’s dealers’’, and the applicant

asked that the exemption cover these

vehicles so that they may be offered for

sale and sold in compliance with the

law. It plans increased production in

1995, of which 60 to 108 would be sold

in the United States.

Excalibur is a small company with 37

employees and net assets of $3,000,000.

The company has had cumulative net

losses of $4,493,000 from January 1,

1992 to September 30, 1994. If it were

required to comply immediately with

the automatic restraint requirements of

Standard No. 208, it would have to raise

the retail price by more than 300 per

cent which ‘‘is likely to deemed (sic) to

be prohibitive by potential purchasers

(and dealers), thereby significantly

reducing the line’s desirability, if not

ending the demand entirely * * *.’’

Denial of the petition would result in a

reduction of the work force to 8

employees.

Excalibur has been owned since 1991

by German residents, who changed the

company’s management in August 1994.

The new management has not been able
12282 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices

to trace the company’s efforts to comply

beyond December 1993 when the then

Vice President of Production informed

the then President that he had ‘‘just

located a potential source for a retrofit

driver’s as well as passenger air bag

system.’’ Compliance was anticipated

‘‘within weeks.’’ NHTSA was likewise

informed of this possibility in December

1993. On May 31, 1994, in an

incomplete petition for exemption from

Standard No. 208, Excalibur informed

the agency that its efforts to work with

companies in Arizona and Florida had

ended in frustration and failure and that

it was currently unable to find a source

for an adequate, workable airbag system.

According to its application,

Excalibur will use the exemption period

‘‘to accommodate a fully-complying

airbag system.’’ It is investigating the

possibility of installing Ford Mustang

steering columns and airbag systems, as

well as whether its existing column

could accept an airbag produced by

Breed Technologies. Exempted vehicles

would be provided with a three-point

restraint system as well as with a

‘‘clearly visible warning label reminding

the vehicle’s occupants of the

importance of wearing their safety belts.

The company argued that an

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of motor vehicle safety

because it presently has 17 dealers in 12

states, and ‘‘a thriving manufacturing

business and dealer network not only

provides employment, but will generate

federal and state tax revenues.’’ The

small number of vehicles that the

exemption will cover and the limited

mileage they will be driven ensure that

an exemption ‘‘will not materially affect

overall motor vehicle safety in the U.S.’’

No comments were received on the

application. That the applicant is

experiencing ‘‘substantial economic

hardship’’ within the meaning of the

phrase, as interpreted by NHTSA, over

the years, is demonstrated by its

continuing and cumulative losses of

approximately $4.5 million over the 2 3/

4 year period previous to filing its

application. The applicant has recently

informed NHTSA that at least two of its

dealers are seeking to terminate their

dealership agreements and to require

Excalibur to repurchase vehicles in

stock because of their failure to meet the

automatic restraint requirements of

Standard No. 208.

The efforts of the applicant to make a

good faith effort to comply with

Standard No. 208 appear to have

originated with the company’s new

ownership in 1991. NHTSA is aware

that small manufacturers of open cars,

such as Excalibur, have found it

difficult to engineer an airbag system

into their existing steering columns, let

alone to find a supplier interested in

providing only a low volume of airbags.

The public interest is served, of

course, as the applicant argues, by

providing continuing employment to

those who manufacture, sell, and repair

Excalibur vehicles, as well as the

benefits derived from the generation of

Federal and state tax revenues. It is also

in the public interest to avoid litigation

where possible and an exemption may

forestall actions against the applicant by

its dealers, which would contribute

further to its hardship. The overall effect

upon motor vehicle safety will be

negligible due to the small number of

cars that will be manufactured and sold

under it, which will be equipped with

a three-point restraint system and a

label reminding the two passengers of

the need to use their safety belts.

The company has also asked that the

exemption cover the vehicles currently

in the hands of its dealers. This is an

unusual request. Only once before has

the agency been petitioned to grant an

exemption to motor vehicles already in

existence. In 1989, Chrysler Corporation

manufactured several electric vans for

research purposes which, three years

later, in 1992, it wished to sell or lease

to a public utility in California. As the

purpose of a temporary exemption is to

allow a company for a limited time to

engage in activities that would

otherwise be in violation of the statute,

the agency granted Chrysler’s petition.

NHTSA noted that an exemption would

permit Chrysler to offer for sale, sell,

introduce and deliver for introduction

into interstate commerce noncomplying

motor vehicles, acts otherwise

prohibited (See 57 FR 27506). The fact

situation is somewhat different here in

that noncomplying vehicles have

already been manufactured for sale and

delivered for introduction into interstate

commerce, in violation of 49 U.S.C.

30112(a). The agency has no authority to

excuse retroactively statutory violations,

and these are acts for which NHTSA has

the right to seek recovery of civil

penalties. However, an exemption will

allow the company to generate income

and its dealers to offer for sale, sell, and

introduce into interstate commerce the

vehicles that are currently in their

possession.

The applicant requested an exemption

for the maximum permissible under

statute, three years. Given the fact that

the company began its compliance

efforts in 1993 if not earlier, the agency

believes that full compliance with

Standard No. 208 should be the

company’s regulatory priority, and is

providing an exemption of two years.

This, of course, does not affect the right

of the applicant to petition for a renewal

if compliance remains elusive.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that compliance with the

automatic restraint requirements of

Standard No. 208 would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

company that has tried to comply with

the standard in good faith, and that an

exemption would be consistent with the

public interest and motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, Excalibur Automobile

Corporation is hereby granted NHTSA

Temporary Exemption No. 95–1 from

paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Occupant Crash Protection, expiring

March 1, 1997.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: February 28, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5322 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P