27784 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices

and environmental impacts of the

alternatives. The previous MIS study

evaluated these impacts at a corridor

level of detail for the LPS Alternative

alignment. These issues will be

evaluated at a project level of detail in

the Draft EIR/EIS. Among the primary

transit issues to be evaluated are the

expected increase in transit ridership,

the expected increase in mobility for the

corridor’s transit dependent, the support

of the region’s air quality goals, the

capital outlays needed to construct the

project, the cost of operating and

maintaining the facilities created by the

project, and the financial impacts on the

funding agencies. Potentially affected

environmental and social resources

proposed for analysis include land use

and neighborhood impacts, residential

and business displacements and

relocations, traffic and parking impacts

near stations, traffic circulation, visual

impacts, impacts on cultural and

archaeological resources, and noise and

vibration impacts. Impacts on air and

water quality, groundwater, hazardous

waste sites, and water resources will

also be covered. The impacts will be

evaluated both for the construction

period and for the long-term period of

operation. Measures to mitigate

significant adverse impacts will be

considered.

V. FTA Procedures

The EIR/EIS and the conceptual

engineering for the Urban Rail project

will be prepared simultaneously. The

EIR/EIS/conceptual engineering process

will assess the social, economic, and

environmental impacts of the proposed

alternatives while refining their design

to minimize and mitigate any adverse

impacts. After its publication, the Draft

EIR/EIS will be available for public and

agency review and comment, and a

public hearing will be held. On the basis

on the Draft EIR/EIS and comments

received, OCTA will select a preferred

alternative to carry forward into the

Final EIR/EIS and complete engineering.

Following this action by OCTA, OCTA

will request FTA authorization to

proceed with the Final EIS/EIR and

complete engineering.

Issued: May 15, 1998.

Leslie Rogers,

Regional Administrator Federal Transit

Administration Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–13438 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3782; Notice 1]

Laforza Automobiles, Inc.; Receipt of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208

Laforza Automobiles, Inc., of

Escondido, California, (‘‘Laforza’’) has

applied for a temporary exemption from

the automatic restraint requirements of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, as

described below. The basis of the

application is that compliance would

cause substantial economic hardship to

a manufacturer that has tried in good

faith to comply with the standard.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published in accordance

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.

30113(b)(2) and does not represent any

judgment of the agency on the merits of

the application.

Laforza is a Nevada corporation

established in August 1997. To date it

has produced no motor vehicles. It

intends to purchase chassis from

Magnum Industriales s.r.l., an Italian

company, ‘‘where it will undergo the

necessary modifications for the US

market.’’ A Ford engine, transmission,

and associated emission control systems

will be installed, and the end result will

be a multipurpose passenger vehicle

(sport utility) called the Prima 4X4.

Laforza estimates a total production of

400 units between the date of the

exemption and December 31, 2000. This

is the date that its requested temporary

exemption would expire.

Laforza seeks an exemption from

S4.2.6.1.1 and S4.2.6.2 of Standard No.

208. Paragraph S4.2.6.1.1, in pertinent

part, would require Laforza to provide a

driver side airbag on not less than 80

percent of all Primas manufactured

before September 1, 1998. Paragraph

S4.2.6.2 would require all Primas

manufactured on and after September 1,

1998, to be equipped with both driver

and right front passenger airbags.

Although the passenger side airbag is

not required until September 1 of this

year, ‘‘the airbag development program

has to include both the passenger and

driver side airbags since the

development duration for a driver’s side

airbag would overlap the time when a

passenger’s side airbag will be

required.’’ Laforza continues, ‘‘If the

development is not combined, many of

these tests would have to be repeated

with a significant increase in test and

material costs.’’

In the first 6 months after its

agreement with Magnum, Laforza spent

‘‘an estimated total of 200 manhours

and $15,000’’ on airbag compliance

issues. Lacking the resources to

independently develop an airbag

system, it ‘‘has contacted airbag

development companies in the US to

assist with the project.’’ Laforza has

concluded that it will take 2 years to

develop and certify the system. If

immediate compliance were required,

the cost would be $4,000,000. An

exemption would permit Laforza to

generate revenues ‘‘to meet the costs

mandated by the airbag development

program’’ and spread these costs over a

period of time. Because the company is

less than a year old, it could not submit

corporate balance sheets and income

statements for the three years

immediately preceding the filing of its

application, as specified by NHTSA’s

regulation. Its stockholder equity is

$900,000.

Laforza argues that ‘‘production of the

Laforza Prima 4X4 is in the best interest

of the public and the US economy,’’

pointing to the uniqueness of the

vehicle, and the American components

that it incorporates, the powertrain from

Ford Motor Company and the purchase

of ‘‘other parts * * * from

approximately five different US

companies.’’ The company currently

employs 15 people full-time and three

people part time, which will grow as

production increases. Further, ‘‘in

addition, * * * at least 50 employees

from other companies are involved in

the Laforza project.’’ During the

exemption period, the Prima will be

‘‘equipped with a conventional retractor

type, three-point driver and passenger

seatbelt system that meets all

requirements of FMVSS No. 208,’’ and

the vehicle otherwise complies with all

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

that apply to it.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the application

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and the notice

number, and be submitted to: Central

Docket Management Facility, room Pl–

401, 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 comment

closing date indicated below will be

considered, and will be available for

examination in the docket (from 10 a.m.

to 5 p.m.) at the above address both

before and after that date. Comments

may also be viewed on the internet at

web site dms.dot.gov. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices 27785

1An agreement was reached among the parties on

December 31, 1996, to transfer all assets from both

EPTC and MWRL to OPR effective January 1, 1997.

Due to oversight, OPR has been operating the rail

lines since January 1, 1997, without appropriate

authority from the Board.

2Under 49 CFR 1150.32(b), a notice of exemption

does not become effective until 7 days after filing.

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the application

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Comment closing date: June 9, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)

Issued: May 15, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–13437 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33570]

Oregon Pacific Railroad Company—

Acquisition and Operation

Exemption—East Portland Traction Co.

and Molalla Western Railway

Oregon Pacific Railroad Company

(OPR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified

notice of exemption under 49 CFR

1150.31 to acquire and operate certain

rail lines of East Portland Traction Co.

(EPTC) and Molalla Western Railway

(MWRL) 1 in Clackamas and Multnomah

Counties, OR. The line to be acquired

from EPTC extends from EPTC milepost

0.26 (at its connection with Union

Pacific Railroad Company’s (UP)

Portland-Eugene mainline at UP MP

769) at or near East Portland, OR, to

milepost 4.54 at Milwaukie, a distance

of 4.28 miles, and includes 2.11 miles

secondary and yard trackage, for a total

trackage of 6.39 miles to be operated in

Clackamas County, OR. The line to be

acquired from MWRL extends from a

connection with the UP main track at

UP milepost 747.568 in the city of

Canby, OR, to MP 757.50 at Molalla, a

distance of 9.93 miles, and includes

1.45 miles of secondary and yard

trackage, for a total trackage of 11.38

miles to be operated in Clakamas

County, OR. The projected revenues of

OPR will not exceed those of a Class III

railroad.

Because OPR did not file its verified

notice, as amended, until May 4, 1998,

the effective STB Finance Docket No.

33570 date of the exemption was May

11, 1998 (7 days after the exemption

was filed).2

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

revoke will not automatically stay the

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33570, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Richard A.

Samuels, President, Oregon Pacific

Railroad Company, P.O. Box 22548,

Portland, OR 97269.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: May 12, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13094 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Fee Schedules for the Issuance of

Definitive Securities and TREASURY

DIRECT Securities Accounts

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt,

Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury is announcing two schedules

of fees for marketable Treasury

securities. The schedules are for the fees

charged for the issuance of definitive

securities and the fees for the annual

maintenance of certain TREASURY

DIRECT securities accounts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen Parker, Director, Division of

Securities Systems, Bureau of the Public

Debt, Parkersburg, West Virginia,

26106–1328, (304) 480–7761.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 23, 1995, the Department

of the Treasury established fee

schedules for the issuance of definitive

securities and the maintenance of

certain TREASURY DIRECT securities

accounts.

The Treasury has decided that the

fees for the issuance of definitive

securities and the maintenance of

certain TREASURY DIRECT Securities

Accounts should remain unchanged

from the amounts currently in effect.

Schedule of Fees for Definitive

Securities

The fee schedule for the issuance of

a definitive security is as follows: a fee

of $50 will be charged for each

definitive security issued on a transfer,

reissue, exchange or withdrawal from

book-entry form, or as a result of the

granting of relief on account of loss,

theft, destruction, mutilation or

defacement. Payment of the fee must

accompany the request for the issues of

securities in physical form. If a request

results in the issuance of more than one

security, the amount of the fee is arrived

at by multiplying the number of pieces

requested by $50. The fee announced

above shall remain in effect until further

notice.

Schedule of Fees for TREASURY

DIRECT Securities Accounts

The fee schedule for TREASURY

DIRECT securities accounts is as

follows: each TREASURY DIRECT

securities account holding Treasury

bonds, notes and bills pursuant to 31

CFR part 357 that exceeds $100,000 in

par amount as of a selected date in May

of each year will be charged an annual

maintenance fee in the amount of $25.

This fee shall remain in effect until

further notice. Each account holder will

be individually billed.

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Van Zeck,

Commissioner of the Public Debt.

[FR Doc. 98–13409 Filed 5–15–98; 1:31 pm]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Forms 1040–ES, 1040–ES

(NR), 1040–ES (Espanol)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is

soliciting comments concerning Form