12820 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Notices

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

which achieve similar objectives.

Comments should focus on the issues

and alternatives for analysis, and not on

a preference for a particular alternative.

Individual preference for a particular

alternative should be communicated

during the comment period for the Draft

EIS.

If you wish to be placed on the

mailing list to receive further

information as the project continues,

contact Mr. Andrew Brennan at the

MBTA (see ADDRESSES above).

II. Description of Study Area and

Project Need

The proposed project consists of an

approximately 3 mile rail tunnel linking

North and South Stations in Boston,

Massachusetts. The northern tunnel

portals will be located to the north of

the Gilmore Bridge and west of the I–93

highway viaduct in Somerville,

Massachusetts. There will be two

southern tunnel portals: one on the

southern side of the Massachusetts

Turnpike between Harrison and

Shawmut Avenues, and the other in the

vicinity of the railroad yard south of the

West Fourth Street Bridge in South

Boston. Three underground passenger

stations are proposed: (1) At the existing

South Station, (2) near the MBTA Blue

Line adjacent to the Aquarium Station,

and (3) between Haymarket and North

Stations. The project will also define

options for creating regional MBTA rail

service by combining the two currently

separate north and south side commuter

rail networks.

The construction of the rail link

tunnel will close the gap in intercity rail

service along the Atlantic seaboard, and

will create a unified rail system for

metropolitan Boston by combining the

two currently separate north and south

side commuter rail networks. This will

reduce rapid transit system congestion

in downtown Boston, increase

operational capacity at South Station,

and improve regional air quality by

diverting automobile trips to the rail

system.

III. Alternatives

The alternatives proposed for

evaluation include: (1) No-action, which

involves no change to existing rail

facilities at North and South Stations,

(2) construction of a rail link tunnel

connecting North and South Stations

along the Central Artery alignment. A

two-track and a four-track tunnel option

will be considered, and

(3) a transportation system

management alternative that will be

identified during the scoping process.

Although the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts has elected to pursue the

North-South Rail Link corridor within

the Central Artery alignment, the FTA is

interested in receiving comments

regarding whether a rail link along the

Congress Street alignment should be

included in the MIS.

IV. Probable Effects

FTA and the MBTA will evaluate all

significant environmental, social, and

economic impacts of the alternatives

analyzed in the EIS. Impacts include

changes in the natural environment (air

and water quality, rare and endangered

species), changes in the social

environment (land use and

neighborhoods, noise and vibration,

aesthetics, park lands, historic/

archeological resources), disposal of

excavated material, public safety and

changes in rail service and patronage.

An operational analysis of combined

north and south side commuter rail

networks will be performed and project

capital and operating costs and revenues

will be estimated. The impacts will be

evaluated both for the construction

period and for the long term period of

operation, and financial information in

support of the MIS will be provided.

Measures to mitigate significant adverse

impacts will also be addressed.

Issued on: March 2, 1995.

Richard H. Doyle,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5587 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 92–50; Notice 4]

Autokraft Ltd.; Grant of Application for

Renewal of Temporary Exemption

From Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208

Autokraft Limited of Weybridge,

Surrey, England, applied for a renewal

of NHTSA Exemption No. 92–6,

exempting its AC MkIV until January 1,

1995, 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 19, 1994,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (59 FR 65428).

Autokraft was granted NHTSA

Exemption No. 92–6 on December 21,

1992 (57 FR 60563), and its exemption

from S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 was

scheduled to expire on January 1, 1995.

Because the application for renewal of

the exemption was filed ‘‘not later than

60 days before the termination date’’ (in

this instance, October 27, 1994), the

termination date has been stayed until

the Administrator has acted upon the

application (49 CFR 555.8(e)).

The applicant sought a further twoyear exemption for its AC Mk IV

passenger car, of which it has produced

15 in the year preceding the filing of its

application. Although the company had

projected sales of 150 units in the

United States in the years 1992–94, in

fact, there were only seven sales.

According to its application, Autokraft

‘‘has continued the process of

researching and developing the

installation of a driver and passenger

side airbag system’’ but ‘‘we have been

unable to achieve the fitting of a suitable

system mainly due to the chassis design

being based upon a classic 1960’s design

and not easily adaptable to suit air bag

installation.’’ The delay is also due to

‘‘the project having insufficient funds

generated by sales and available for

completing the development.’’

Autokraft concluded that the

adaptation of an existing automatic

restraint system is the only viable

alternative. Its continuation of

compliance efforts has given it

‘‘significant knowledge into the areas of

vehicle modification, computer

simulation, design rough road testing

and low, medium and high speed crash

testing.’’ Complicating its efforts is the

need to use a different engine and

transmission after October 1, 1995, and

the possible effect that this will have

upon compliance. It estimated the cost

to achieve conformance would be

$550,000, achievable by spreading these

costs during the exemption period.

Autokraft reported losses totalling

3,308,243 Pounds Sterling

(approximately $5,624,000 at a rate of

$1.70/1) for the years 1992–93, and

projected a further loss for 1994.

The company argued that an

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of motor vehicle safety

because it meets all applicable EEC

standards, and all U.S. Federal motor

vehicle safety standards with the

exception of the automatic restraint

requirements of Standard No. 208 (its 3-

point driver and passenger restraints

meet the previous requirements). The

production of the car makes available to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Notices 12821

the public ‘‘at a realistic price’’ a replica

of the original AC Cobra vehicle

produced from the original AC Cobra

tooling, manufactured during the 1960’s

predominantly for the American market.

Autokraft is in the process of finalizing

a U.S. distribution agreement and

showed the car at the North American

International Auto Show in Detroit in

January 1995.

The applicant believes that it will

comply with Standard No. 208 six

months before January 1, 1997, when

the 2-year extension of its exemption

that it has requested would expire.

No comments were received on the

petition.

Review of the application for renewal

shows continued existence of the net

loss position of the applicant upon

which the agency first found that

compliance would cause substantial

economic hardship. The fact that only

seven cars were sold in the United

States under the previous two-year

exemption demonstrates that the U.S.

specification MkIV could not contribute

to a significant offset of Autokraft’s net

losses. The examples on display at the

Detroit Show were reported to have a

suggested price of $95,000 each, making

it unlikely that the applicant will

increase its sales by a significant

number of vehicles, even if it can enter

a U.S. distribution agreement. The car,

an open 2-seater, is of limited utility.

NHTSA notes that the company’s efforts

to comply have been made more

difficult by the vehicle’s 1960’s

configuration, but that the company

believes that it will be in a position to

manufacture a fully-conforming vehicle

by July 1996, thus it has not requested

the maximum exemption of 3 years to

which it would be entitled under the

hardship provisions. NHTSA also

recognizes that the MkIV is certified as

meeting all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards except for

S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208, and that

each of its passenger positions is

equipped with a three-point restraint

system of a type that previously was

sufficient to meet Standard No. 208’s

requirements for passenger cars. It is in

the public interest that a variety of

motor vehicles continue to be provided.

Sales, even though small in number,

will make a positive contribution to the

economy through the employment

afforded through the distribution, sales,

and repair channels.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that compliance with

Standard No. 208 would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

manufacturer that tried to comply with

the standard in good faith. It is hereby

further found that an exemption is

consistent with the public interest and

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—Motor Vehicle

Safety. Accordingly, NHTSA Temporary

Exemption No. 92–6 from paragraph

S4.1.4. of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant

Crash Protection is extended to January

1, 1997.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: March 2, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5690 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Art Advisory Panel—Notice of Closed

Meeting

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting of Art

Advisory Panel.

SUMMARY: Closed meeting of the Art

Advisory Panel will be held in

Washington, DC.

DATES: The meeting will be held March

29 and 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The closed meeting of the

Art Advisory Panel will be held on

March 29 and 30, 1995 in room 118,

beginning at 9:30 a.m., Aerospace

Center Building, 901 D Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Carolan, CC:AP:AS:4 901 D Street

SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone

(202) 401–4128, (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given pursuant to section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988),

that a closed meeting of the Art

Advisory Panel will be held on March

29 and 30, 1995 in room 118 beginning

at 9:30 a.m., Aerospace Center Building,

901 D Street SW., Washington, DC

20024.

The agenda will consist of the review

and evaluation of the acceptability of

fair market value appraisals of works of

art involved in federal income, estate, or

gift tax returns. This will involve the

discussion of material in individual tax

returns made confidential by the

provisions of section 6103 of Title 26 of

the United States Code.

A determination as required by

section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act has been made that this

meeting is concerned with matters listed

in section 552b(c) (3), (4), (6), and (7) of

Title 5 of the United States Code, and

that the meeting will not be open to the

public.

The Commissioner of Internal

Revenue has determined that this

document is not a significant regulatory

action as defined in Executive Order

12866 and that a regulatory impact

analysis therefore is not required.

Neither does this document constitute a

rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

Margaret Milner Richardson,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 95–5675 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Information Collection Under OMB

Review: Other On-the-Job Training

Agreement and Apprenticeship

Training Agreement and Standards, VA

Form 22–8864, and Employer’s

Application to Provide Job Training,

VA Form 22–8865

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Veterans Affairs

has submitted to OMB the following

proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). This document lists the

following information: (1) The title of

the information collection, and the

Department form number(s); if

applicable; (2) a description of the need

and its use; (3) who will be required or

asked to respond; (4) an estimate of the

total annual reporting hours, and

recordkeeping burden, if applicable; (5)

the estimated average burden hours per

respondent; (6) the frequency of

response; and (7) an estimated number

of respondents.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed

information collection and supporting

documents may be obtained from Trish

Fineran, Veterans Benefits

Administration (20M30), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–

6886.

Comments and questions about the

items on the list should be directed to

VA’s OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey,

NEOB, Room 3002, Washington, DC

20503, (202) 395–7316. Do not send

requests for benefits to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information

collection should be directed to the

OMB Desk Officer by no later than April

7, 1995.

Dated: February 28, 1995.