2864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

Cove, Suite 3, Memphis, Tennessee

38131–0301; telephone number 901–

544–3495. The application may be

reviewed in person at this location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to use the

revenue from a PFC at Nashville

International Airport under 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 January 19, 1996, the FAA

determined that the application to use

the revenue from a PFC submitted by

the Metropolitan Nashville Airport

Authority was substantially complete

within the requirements of section

158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than April

18, 1996.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

PFC application number: 96–02–U–00–

BNA

Level of the PFC: $3.00

Actual charge effective date: January 1,

1993

Estimated charge expiration date:

December 1, 2001

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$99,443,000

Total amount of use approval requested

in this application: $11,713,300

Brief description of proposed project(s):

Construct Concourse Connector—

Construct International Arrivals

Building

Class or classes of air carriers which the

public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Part 135 (air

taxi) operators.

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

Metropolitan Nashville Airport

Authority.

Issued in Memphis, Tennessee, on January

19, 1996.

Wayne R. Miles,

Assistant Manager, Memphis Airports District

Office.

[FR Doc. 96–1439 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Notice of Availability of Scoping Paper

for Environmental Impact Statement,

Proposed Terminal Doppler Weather

Radar To Serve John F. Kennedy

International and La Guardia Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The FAA announces the

availability of a Scoping Paper for the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Terminal Doppler Weather Radar

(TDWR) to serve John F. Kennedy

International and La Guardia Airports.

In accordance with requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended, (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C), the FAA is conducting a

scoping process to determine the issues

and alternatives to be analyzed in this

EIS. The Scoping Paper outlines

objectives and procedures of the scoping

process and technical issues to be

addressed in the EIS. Copies of the

Scoping Paper are available upon

request to the FAA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

announces the availability of a Scoping

Paper for the Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for Terminal Doppler

Weather Radar (TDWR) to serve John F.

Kennedy International and La Guardia

Airports. In accordance with

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended, (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C),

the FAA is conducting a scoping

process to determine the issues and

alternatives to be analyzed in this EIS.

The Scoping Paper covers the

objectives of the scoping process,

procedures to be followed by the FAA

during the scoping process, planned

times and locations of public scoping

meetings, the proposed action and

alternatives to be addressed in the EIS

and anticipated environmental issues.

The Scoping Paper also lists the EIS

core team members and agencies likely

to participate in the EIS process, and

includes a draft outline for the EIS.

Comments from interested parties on

the scope of the EIS and the contents of

the Scoping Paper are encouraged and

may be submitted to the FAA in writing

to the address given below or presented

verbally at the scoping meetings. Times

and locations of the scoping meetings

are given in the Scoping Paper. Written

comments must be received by April 2,

1996. Comments should discuss

environmental concerns and issues

related to the proposed action,

suggested analyses and methodologies

for inclusion in the EIS, possible

sources of relevant data or information,

or feasible alternatives to the proposed

action.

Copies of the Scoping Paper are

available upon request to the FAA or

may be obtained at the scoping

meetings. Written requests for copies of

the Scoping Paper and written

comments on the Scoping Paper should

be addressed to FAA as follows: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attention: Docket (AGC–

200) Docket No. 28365, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerome D. Schwartz, Environmental

Specialist, Federal Aviation

Administration, Wind Shear Products

Team, AND–420, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,

telephone (202) 358–4946.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 23,

1996.

Loni Czekalski,

Director of Communications, Navigation, and

Surveillance Systems, AND–1.

[FR Doc. 96–1536 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Notice of Public Scoping Meetings for

Environmental Impact Statement,

Proposed Terminal Doppler Weather

Radar To Serve John F. Kennedy

International and La Guardia Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: In accordance with

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended, (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C),

the FAA is preparing an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for Terminal

Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) to serve

John F. Kennedy International and La

Guardia Airports. The FAA will conduct

scoping meetings to obtain public

comments on the issues and alternatives

to be analyzed in this EIS. Meetings will

be held during March 5–7, 1996, at

various locations in Brooklyn and

Queens, New York, and will be open to

all interested parties.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended, (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C), the FAA is conducting a

scoping process to determine the issues

and alternatives to be analyzed in

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Terminal Doppler Weather Radar

(TDWR) to serve John F. Kennedy

International and La Guardia Airports.

The FAA intends to conduct four public
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2865

scoping meetings for this EIS at the

times and locations listed under the

heading DATES AND LOCATIONS. Sign

interpretation can be made available at

a meeting if requested 10 calendar days

before the specific meeting at which the

service is required.

Comments from interested parties on

the scope of the EIS are encouraged and

should be submitted to the FAA in

writing or presented verbally at the

scoping meetings. Written comments

must be received by April 2, 1996.

Comments should discuss

environmental concerns and issues

related to the proposed action,

suggested analyses and methodologies

for inclusion in the EIS, possible

sources of relevant data or information

or feasible alternatives to the proposed

action. Submit written comments to

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 28365, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington DC 20591.

DATES AND LOCATIONS: March 5, 1996, 7–

10 p.m., Travel Lodge, Building #144,

JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY,

11430; March 6, 1996, 9 a.m.–12 noon

and 7 p.m.–10 p.m., Kingsborough

Community College, 2001 Oriental

Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, 11235; March 7,

1996, 7 p.m.–10 p.m., Ramada Inn, 90–

10 Grand Central Parkway, East

Elmhurst, NY 11369.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerome D. Schwartz, Environmental

Specialist, Federal Aviation

Administration, Wind Shear Products

Team, AND–420, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20591,

telephone (202) 358–4946.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23,

1996.

Loni Czekalski,

Director of Communications, Navigation, and

Surveillance Systems, AND–1.

[FR Doc. 96–1535 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 95–57; Notice 2]

General Motors Corp.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) of

Warren, Michigan, determined that

some of its vehicles failed to comply

with the requirements of 49 CFR

571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps,

Reflective Devices, and Associated

Equipment,’’ and filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

GM 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 July 26, 1995, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (60

FR 38392).

Paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No.

108 requires that ‘‘all other lamps [not

mentioned in Paragraphs S5.5.10(a–c)

which includes all stop lamps such as

center high-mounted stop lamps

(CHMSLs)] shall be wired to be steadyburning.’’

During the 1995 model year, GM

manufactured a total of 96,607 GMC and

Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon, and

Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles with CHMSLs

that were inadvertently wired in a

manner which permits the CHMSLs to

momentarily flash under certain

conditions while the driver is in the

process of activating or deactivating the

hazard flashers. As a result, they do not

meet the requirement of Paragraph

S5.5.10(d) that they be ‘‘wired to be

steady-burning.’’ While GM designed

the vehicles to meet this requirement, it

subsequently discovered a transient

contact condition inside the multifunction (stop lamp, CHMSL, turn

signal, and hazard flasher) switch which

occasionally causes the CHMSL to flash

while the driver is in the process of

turning the hazard flasher switch ‘‘on’’

or ‘‘off.’’ The error was corrected in

production in March 1995 by adding a

brake lamp relay to the I/P harness to

provide isolation from the multifunction switch transient.

GM supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

The CHMSL performs properly at all times

when the service brakes are applied. The

transient condition will not occur if the

service brakes are applied when the driver

activates or deactivates the hazard flasher

switch. Therefore, the CHMSL will not flash

when it is required to be steady-burning. The

CHMSL will not flash if the ignition switch

is in the ‘‘off’’ position. Thus, the condition

will not occur if the hazard flashers are

turned ‘‘off’’ or ‘‘on’’ when the ignition is off

and the vehicle is parked at the side of the

road, for example.

If the CHMSL flashes at all, it will

illuminate a maximum of three times during

the transient condition, with each pulse

lasting 0.5 [millisecond (ms)] to 4.0 ms. The

entire unintended event, in its worst case,

lasts no more than 125.8 ms. This extremely

short duration is likely to go entirely

unnoticed by following drivers in many

instances. In the event that it is noticed, it is

not likely to be confused with anything other

than the hazard flashers. Since the flashers

will be activated while the unintended

condition occurs, but the brake lamps will

not be, this will not present a safety risk.

The CHMSL otherwise meets all of the

requirements of FMVSS 108.

In a 1989 interpretation, NHTSA discussed

the difference between the requirements that

stop lamps be steady-burning and hazard

warning lights flash. NHTSA explained:

Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be

steady-burning, and hazard warning signal

lamps to flash (generally through the turn

signal lamps). The primary reason for the

distinction is that the stop lamps are

intended to be operated while the vehicle is

in motion, while hazard warning lamps are

intended to indicate that the vehicle is

stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a

single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp

which is ordinarily steady burning begins to

flash, the agency is concerned that the signal

will prove confusing to motorists, thereby

diluting the effectiveness.

August 8, 1989 letter from S.P. Wood, Acting

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to L.P. Egley

While this condition technically causes a

lamp which is ordinarily steady burning to

begin to flash, it will not likely ‘‘prove

confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its

effectiveness,’’ because it will not occur if the

service brakes are applied. Even if the

condition were mistaken for a brake signal

(which is doubtful since CHMSLs do not

flash with brake lamp activation), the

following driver would not likely react to it.

According to recent research studies

conducted by GM, as well as field data, it

takes a following driver at least 0.5 seconds

to react to a signal and apply the service

brakes once [a] preceding vehicle’s brake

lamps are activated. Given the extremely

short duration of the transient CHMSL

condition, the misinterpreted signal would

be gone long before the following driver

could respond.

Hazard flashers are not frequently used.

Thus, the exposure of following drivers to the

noncompliant condition would be very

limited. This is particularly true because of

the transient nature of the condition, its short

duration, and the fact that it will not occur

at all if the service brakes are applied or the

vehicle’s ignition is off.

GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries,

owner complaints, or field reports related to

this condition.

No comments were received on the

application.

GM states that ‘‘[t]he entire

unintended event, in its worst case, lasts

no more than 125.8 ms.’’ This is 1⁄8th of

a second. As GM further stated,

according its research studies and field

data, it takes a following driver at least

half a second to react to a signal and to

apply the service brakes once a

preceding vehicle’s brakes are activated.

NHTSA finds this a convincing

argument that the transient activation of

the CHMSL, a false signal, is highly

unlikely to mislead a following driver