Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Notices 14317

submitted by the City of Lebanon was

substantially complete within the

requirements of section 158.25 of Part

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

The FAA will approve or disapprove the

application, in whole or in part, no later

than June 5, 1995.

The following is a brief overview of

the use application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00

Proposed change effective date: July 15,

1995

Proposed charge expiration date: July

15, 1995

Estimated total net PFC revenue:

$449,297

Brief description of projects:

Impose and use projects:

Reconstruct Runway 7–25

Improve Runway 7–25 Safety Areas

Design and Extend Taxiway A

Purchase Snow Removal Equipment

Environmental Assessment/Runway

18–36 (Phase I)

Environmental Assessment/Runway

18–36 (Phase II)

Design Runway 18–36 Reconstruction

Purchase Aircraft Rescue and Fire

Fighting Vehicle

Purchase Snow Removal Equipment

Impose Only Projects:

Reconstruction of Runway 18–36

Expand General Aviation Expansion

(South Ramp)

Reconstruct Taxiway A

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Non Excluded.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Lebanon

Airport, 5 Airpark Road, West Lebanon,

New Hampshire 03784.

Issues in Burlington, Massachusetts on

March 8, 1995.

Bradley A. Davis,

Assistant Manager, Airports Division New

England Region.

[FR Doc. 95–6517 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

will be prepared for the Proposed

Edmonds Multi-Modal Transportation

Center project in the city of Edmonds,

Snohomish County Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gene K. Fong, Division Administrator,

Federal Highway Administration,

Evergreen Plaza Building, 711 South

Capitol Way, Suite 501, Olympia,

Washington 98501, Telephone: (360)

753–9413; Paul L. Green, Director/CEO,

Washington State Ferries, 801 Alaska

Way, Seattle, Washington 98104–1487,

Telephone 206–464–7800; Paul Mar,

Director of Community Services, City of

Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue, Edmonds,

Washington 98020, Telephone (206)

771–0220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the

Washington State Department of

Transportation, the Federal Transit

Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Community Transit, and the

city of Edmonds will prepare an EIS for

a proposed Edmonds Multi-Modal

Transportation Center project in the city

of Edmonds, Snohomish County,

Washington. The proposed action will

integrate Edmonds’ ferry, rail, and bus

transportation needs in a new complex.

More specifically, the multi-modal

facility will provide: a ferry terminal

that meets the operational requirements

to accommodate forecasted ferry

ridership demands; a train station that

meets the inter-city passenger service

and commuter rail loading

requirements; a transit center that meets

the local bus system and regional transit

system loading requirements; and a

linkage system between these station/

terminals that meets the operational and

safety requirements of each mode.

This project is intended to address the

conflicts between ferry, rail, auto, and

pedestrian traffic in the confined area of

downtown Edmonds. During ferry

loading and unloading operations, all

other non-ferry traffic is disrupted. The

lack of grade separation between the rail

line and ferry access often creates

slowdowns in ferry operation. These

conflicts interrupt the efficient

movement of people and goods in and

through the downtown area, create an

unsafe facility for users of all modes,

complicate access to local businesses

and, in general, stymie the economic

development of the City’s downtown.

Relocating the terminal to another

location away from the immediate

downtown area is seen as a solution to

these conflicts. Access to the ferry

terminal is via SR 104 through the

downtown area, bisecting the

commercial district and the regional

waterfront park. Relocating the ferry

terminal and SR 104 will thus separate

ferry and non-ferry traffic and eliminate

current conflicts. In addition, the

existing ferry terminal is inadequate to

handle today’s ferry demands. The

facility needs to be upgraded to include

two landing slips and a separate

loading/unloading facility for walk-on

passengers. Currently, walk-on

passengers loan and unload through the

car deck, raising concern regarding

safety and Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) compliance. Finally, the

existing train station does not meet ADA

standards and needs major structural

upgrading. To promote non-auto modes,

the train station would be located close

to the relocated ferry terminal.

Two preliminary build alternatives

and the no action alternative have been

identified for analysis in the EIS. The

two build alternatives would establish

the proposed multi-modal center by

relocating the existing Washington State

Ferry terminal from Main Street to one

of two sites: (1) Point Edwards Site

located approximately 3⁄4 mile south of

Main Street, and (2) a Mid Waterfront

Site located roughly half way between

the Point Edwards site and Main Street.

In both build alternatives, SR 104 would

be realigned north of Pine Street to past

through the existing Unocal owned site

and provide direct access to the

proposed multi-modal center.

Major issues related to environmental

resources have been identified for these

preliminary build alternatives in the

following areas: vegetation, wildlife,

and fisheries; wetlands; hazardous

waste; park lands and recreational

facilities; water quality; floodplains;

land use; air qualify; multimodal

transportation; and visual quality.

The no action alternative would

maintain the ferry terminal at the

existing Main Street location without

any additional improvements to link

ferry, rail, and bus transportation

services.

To begin a formal scoping period,

letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal, State and local

agencies, affected Native-American

groups, and private organizations and

citizens who have previously expressed

or are known to have interest in this

proposal. A public scoping meeting has

been tentatively scheduled for April,

1995 to solicit public input. An open

house and public hearing will be held

to receive comments on the draft EIS

after it is approved for circulation. The

draft EIS will be available for public and

agency review and comment prior to the

public hearing. Public notice will be

given of the time and place of the

scoping meeting, open house and
14318 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Notices

hearing, and of the availability of the

draft EIS.

To assure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the EIS, or requests

to be added to the mailing list, should

be directed to the FHWA at the address

provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on: March 8, 1995.

Jose ́ M. Miranda,

Environmental Program Manager, Olympia

Washington.

[FR Doc. 95–6495 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 95–18; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1991

Yamaha FJ1200 (4CR) Motorcycles Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1991

Yamaha FJ1200 (4CR) motorcycles are

eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that a 1991 Yamaha

FJ1200 (4CR) that was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards is eligible for importation into

the United States because (1) It is

substantially similar to a vehicle that

was originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and that was certified by its

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards, and (2) it is capable of

being readily altered to conform to the

standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is April 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket

hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted

Bayler, Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (the Act)), a motor vehicle

that was not originally manufactured to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards shall be refused

admission into the United States unless

NHTSA has decided that the motor

vehicle is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle originally manufactured

for importation into and sale in the

United States, certified under 49 U.S.C.

30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act),

and of the same model year as the

model of the motor vehicle to be

compared, and is capable of being

readily altered to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer 90–009) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1991 Yamaha FJ1200 (4CR) motorcycles

are eligible for importation into the

United States. The vehicle which

Champagne believes is substantially

similar is the 1991 Yamaha FJ1200

(4CR) motorcycle that was

manufactured for importation into, and

sale in, the United States and certified

by its manufacturer as conforming to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared the non-U.S. certified 1991

Yamaha FJ1200 (4CR) motorcycle to its

U.S. certified counterpart, and found the

two vehicles to be substantially similar

with respect to compliance with most

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified

1991 Yamaha FJ1200 (4CR) motorcycle,

as originally manufactured, conforms to

many Federal motor vehicle safety

standards in the same manner as its U.S.

certified counterpart, or is capable of

being readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

the 1991 Yamaha FJ1200 (4CR) is

identical to its U.S. certified counterpart

with respect to compliance with

Standards Nos. 106 Brake Hoses, 111

Rearview Mirrors, 115 Vehicle

Identification Number, 116 Motor

Vehicle Brake Fluids, 122 Motorcycle

Brake Systems and 205 Glazing

Materials.

The petitioner further contends that

the vehicle is capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices, and Associated Equipment: (a)

Installation of a U.S. model headlamp;

(b) installation of a U.S. model flasher

relay/lamp assembly; (c) installation of

a U.S. model taillamp assembly.

Standard No. 119 New Pneumatic

tires for Vehicles other than Passenger

Cars: Replacement of the original tires

with ones that bear the DOT marking

and a tire identification number.

Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and

Rims for Motor Vehicles other than

Passenger Cars: Installation of a tire

information placard.

Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls

and Displays: Replacement of the

speedometer/odometer with one

calibrated in miles per hour.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

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, DC 20590. It is requested

but not required that 10 copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(B) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.