27782 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices

County

Current FY

1998 allocation

Additional

allocation

New FY

1998 allocation

Argentina .................................................................................................................................................. 56,832 8,731 65,563

Australia .................................................................................................................................................... 109,699 16,853 126,552

Barbados .................................................................................................................................................. 7,830 0 7,830

Belize ........................................................................................................................................................ 14,538 2,234 16,772

Bolivia ....................................................................................................................................................... 10,573 1,624 12,198

Brazil ......................................................................................................................................................... 191,642 29,442 221,084

Colombia .................................................................................................................................................. 31,720 4,873 36,593

Congo ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,258 0 7,258

Cote d’Ivoire ............................................................................................................................................. 7,258 0 7,258

Costa Rica ................................................................................................................................................ 19,825 3,046 22,871

Dominican Republic ................................................................................................................................. 232,614 35,736 268,350

Ecuador .................................................................................................................................................... 14,538 2,234 16,772

El Salvador ............................................................................................................................................... 34,363 5,279 39,643

Figi ............................................................................................................................................................ 11,895 1,827 13,722

Gabon ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,258 0 7,258

Guatemala ................................................................................................................................................ 63,440 9,746 73,186

Guyana ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,860 2,437 18,297

Haiti .......................................................................................................................................................... 7,258 0 7,258

Honduras .................................................................................................................................................. 13,217 2,030 15,247

India .......................................................................................................................................................... 10,573 1,624 12,198

Jamaica .................................................................................................................................................... 14,538 2,234 16,772

Madagascar .............................................................................................................................................. 7,258 0 7,258

Malawi ...................................................................................................................................................... 13,217 2,030 15,247

Mauritius ................................................................................................................................................... 15,860 2,437 18,297

Mexico ...................................................................................................................................................... 25,000 0 25,000

Mozambique ............................................................................................................................................. 17,182 2,640 19,821

Nicaraque ................................................................................................................................................. 27,755 4,264 32,019

Panama .................................................................................................................................................... 38,328 5,888 44,217

Papua New Guinea .................................................................................................................................. 7,258 0 7,258

Paraguay .................................................................................................................................................. 7,258 0 7,258

Peru .......................................................................................................................................................... 54,189 8,325 62,513

Philippines ................................................................................................................................................ 178,426 27,411 205,837

South Africa .............................................................................................................................................. 30,398 4,670 35,069

St. Kitts & Nevis ....................................................................................................................................... 7,258 0 7,258

Swaziland ................................................................................................................................................. 21,147 3,249 24,395

Taiwan ...................................................................................................................................................... 15,860 2,437 18,297

Thailand .................................................................................................................................................... 18,503 2,843 21,346

Trinidad-Tobago ....................................................................................................................................... 9,252 1,421 10,673

Uruguay .................................................................................................................................................... 7,258 0 7,258

Zimbabwe ................................................................................................................................................. 15,860 2,437 18,297

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 1,4000,000 200,000 1,600,000

Each allocation to a country that is a

net importer of sugar is conditioned on

compliance with the requirements of

section 902(c)(1) of the Food Security

Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C 1446g note).

Charlene Barshefsky,

United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 98–13378 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

Environmental Impact Statement on

the Proposed Urban Rail Project

Between the Fullerton Transportation

Center and Irvine Transportation

Center, Orange County, CA

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), as lead agency,

and the Orange County Transportation

Authority (OCTA) intend to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) on a proposal by OCTA to

further study the proposed

implementation of an urban rail system

within a corridor 45 kilometers (28

miles) long and 9.7 kilometers (6 miles)

wide between the Cities of Fullerton

and Irvine, known as the Orange County

Urban Rail (Urban Rail) Project. In

addition to NEPA, the proposed project

is subject to compliance with the

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), therefore, a joint

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/EIS

will be prepared.

The EIR/EIS will evaluate the

following alternatives: 1) The Local

Preferred Strategy (LPS) Alignment

Alternative. This alternative would

follow the alignment identified in the

Priority Corridor Major Investment

Study, June 1997, on an elevated

guideway. 2) A Lower Cost Alternative

(LCA). This alternative would connect

the Fullerton and Irvine Transportation

Centers and would serve many of the

activity centers in the Corridor along a

route which minimizes the distance and

number of freeway crossings. The

system would be primarily at grade on

local streets. 3) A No Build Alternative,

which involves no change to

transportation services or facilities in

the corridor beyond already committed

projects. Potential new feasible

alternatives generated through the

scoping process will also be considered.

Scoping will be accomplished

through correspondence with interested
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices 27783

persons, organizations, and Federal,

State, and local agencies; and one public

scoping meeting

DATES: Comment Due Date: Written

comments on the scope of alternatives

and impacts to be considered should be

submitted by June 22, 1998. Written

comments should be sent to Ms. Cindy

Krebs, OCTA, 550 South Main Street,

P.O. Box 14184, Orange, CA 92863.

Written comments may also be made at

the public scoping meeting scheduled

below. Scoping Meeting: The public

scoping meeting will take place on:

Thursday, June 4, 1998 from 4:30 p.m.

to 7:00 p.m. at Fullerton Senior Center.

See ADDRESS below.

People with special needs should

contact Cindy Krebs at OCTA at the

address below or by calling (714) 560–

5740. A TDD number is also available:

(714) 636–4327. The building is

accessible to people with disabilities.

The meeting will be held in an ‘‘openhouse’’ format, and representatives will

be available to discuss the project

throughout the time periods given.

Informational displays and written

material will also be available

throughout the time periods given.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Ms. Cindy Krebs, OCTA, 550

South Main Street, P.O. Box 14184,

Orange, CA 92863. Written comments

may also be made at the public scoping

meting as scheduled below. The

Scoping Meeting will take place at the

following location: Thursday, June 4,

1998 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.,

Fullerton Senior Center, 340 W.

Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA

92832.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Cindy Krebs, OCTA, 550 South Main

Street, P.O. Box 14184, Orange, CA

92863, (714) 560–5740, or fax (714) 560–

5794.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scoping

FTA and OCTA invite interested

individuals, organizations, and Federal,

State, and local agencies to participate

in defining the alternatives to be

evaluated in the EIR/EIS and identifying

any significant social, economic, or

environmental issues related to the

alternatives. An information packet

describing the purpose of the project,

the location, the proposed alternatives,

and the impact areas to be evaluated is

being mailed to affected Federal, State,

and local agencies. Others may request

the scoping materials by contacting Ms.

Cindy Krebs, OCTA, 550 South Main

Street, P.O. Box 14184, Orange, CA

92863, (714) 560–5740, or fax (714) 560–

5794. Scoping comments may be made

in writing at the public scoping meeting.

See the Scoping Meeting section above

for the location and time. During

scoping, comments should focus on

identifying specific social, economic, or

environmental impacts to be evaluated

and suggesting alternatives that are less

costly or less environmentally damaging

while meeting the identified mobility

needs. Scoping is not the appropriate

time to indicate a preference for a

particular alternative. Comments on

preferences should be communicated

after the Draft EIR/EIS has been

completed. If you wish to be placed on

the mailing list to receive further

information as the project develops,

contact: Ms. Cindy Krebs, OCTA, 550

South Main Street, P.O. Box 14184,

Orange, CA 92863, (714) 560–5740, or

fax (714) 560–5794.

II. Description of Study Area and

Project Need

The study area extends from the City

of Fullerton in a general southward

direction through the Cities of Anaheim,

Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and

Costa Mesa and then eastward to the

City of Irvine, California. The area is

approximately 45 kilometers (28 miles)

long and 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) wide.

The study corridor contains key

activity, employment, and

transportation facilities in Orange

County such as: Fullerton College,

Downtown Fullerton, Fullerton

Transportation Center, Orangefair Mall,

Downtown Anaheim, Disneyland,

Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim

Stadium (Edison Field), Anaheim

Amtrak Station, the Arrowhead Pond,

the City Mills, the St. Joseph Children’s

Hospital, the Main Place Mall, Santa

Ana Transportation Center, Downtown

Santa Ana, the Federal, County and City

Civic Center area, South Coast Plaza/

Metro, Orange Coast College, John

Wayne Airport, UCI, the Irvine

Spectrum and Entertainment Center,

and the Irvine Transportation Center.

This EIR/EIS is the logical next step

in transportation planning and project

development following OCTA’s

completion of a Major Investment Study

(MIS) of the mobility needs in the study

area. This MIS employed a far-reaching

public involvement program,

continuous coordination with affected

and interested agencies, and a detailed

evaluation of a wide range of

alternatives to meet the identified

mobility needs. As the MIS process was

mode-neutral in nature, the public

identified a comprehensive set of bus,

road, and urban rail alternatives.

Detailed analysis at a conceptual

engineering level was completed for a

set of alternatives to identify project

cost, ridership, cost-effectiveness

measurements, and environmental

benefits and impacts. The results led to

the development of a Locally Preferred

Strategy (LPS) that includes: (1)

optimization of the present system

through expanded bus service and

increased Metrolink commuter rail

service seats and (2) continued study of

a light rail system between the Fullerton

and Irvine Transportation Centers. This

EIS focuses on the light rail alternative.

An effective multi-modal

transportation network within the

project study area is necessary to meet

the future mobility needs of businesses

and residents in Orange County. By the

year 2020, despite current and planned

transportation system improvements,

the magnitude and nature of the

County’s population and employment

growth trends are projected to result in

continuing transportation challenges in

the corridor area as evidenced by:

increasing travel—approximately 1.8

million more daily trips; growing

transit-reliant population—doubling of

senior population; continuing freeway

congestion—73 percent of the freeway

system will operate at 30 m.p.h. or less

during morning and evening peak

periods; increasing arterial congestion—

major intersections with delay will grow

from four percent to 27 percent; and

limited travel options—congested

freeway and street system, and

financially constrained bus and

Metrolink service.

III. Alternatives

The alternatives proposed for

evaluation include: (1) LPS Alignment

Alternative. This alternative would

follow the alignment identified in the

Priority Corridor Major Investment

Study (June, 1997), which provided for

an elevated guideway from end to end

within the arterial corridors. The

elevated guideway would typically be

supported on columns within the

median. (2) A Lower Cost Alternative

(LCA). This alternative would connect

the Fullerton and Irvine Transportation

Centers and would serve many of the

activity centers in the Corridor along a

route which minimizes the distance and

number of freeway crossings. The

system would be primarily at grade on

local streets. (3) A No Build Alternative,

which involves no change to

transportation services or facilities in

the corridor beyond already committed

projects. Potential new feasible

alternatives generated through the

scoping process will also be considered.

IV. Probable Effects

FTA and OCTA will evaluate, in the

EIR/EIS, all significant social, economic,
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