16888 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

In the meantime, on November 5,

1996, the voters of San Mateo County

passed the Devil’s Slide Tunnel

Initiative known as Measure T. Passage

of the Measure initiated the process to

amend the County’s land use plan

portion of the San Mateo County

certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) to

provide a tunnel for motorized vehicles

only behind Devil’s Slide through San

Pedro Mountain as the preferred

alternative for Highway 1 around Devil’s

Slide, and to delete references to a twolane bypass along the Martini Creek

alignment. The Initiative required that

the tunnel be designed consistent with

restricting Route 1 to a 2-lane scenic

highway using minimum state and

federal tunnel standards, and that a

separate trail for pedestrians and

bicycles be provided outside the tunnel.

The Measure also requires voter

approval of any other alternative to the

tunnel, except repair of the existing

highway. On January 9, 1997, the

California Coastal Commission voted

unanimously to certify the LCP

amendment as submitted by the County.

The proposed tunnel alternative is a

1,219 m (4,000-foot) long, double bore

facility with one lane in each direction.

The north approach road is about 457 m

(1,500 feet) long, and the south

approach road is about 305 m (1,000

feet) long. Proceeding south from

Pacifica, the alignment departs from

existing Route 1 along a 7% uphill

grade, crosses the valley at Shamrock

Ranch, passes through a small ravine,

enters the tunnel beneath San Pedro

Mountain, and exits the tunnel just

south of the Devil’s Slide area where it

rejoins the existing highway.

Two tunnel design variations, a 9.1 m

(30-foot) wide tunnel (variation A), and

an 11.0 m 36-foot) wide tunnel

(variation B), will be analyzed in the

SEIS/EIR. The total project costs of

tunnel variations A and B are estimated

to be $125,950,000 and $130,294,000,

respectively. Tunnel variation B allows

pedestrian and bicycle access inside the

tunnel, while variation A provides a

pedestrian/bicycle path outside the

tunnel. Even though tunnel variation B

is not consistent with the County’s

recently revised LCP, this design must

be considered until an economically

and environmentally feasible bicycle/

pedestrian path alignment outside the

tunnel (variation A) has been

established through the environmental

process. Until such time, variation B

will be analyzed as a viable option that

retains bicycle and pedestrian

continuity along Route 1.

Letters describing this proposed

action and soliciting comments will be

sent to appropriate Federal, State, and

local agencies, and to private

organizations and individuals that have

previously expressed, or are known to

have, an interest in this proposal. In

addition, two formal public hearings

will be held on the draft supplemental

EIS; one in Half Moon Bay, and one in

Pacifica. Public notice will be given of

the exact time and place of the hearings.

The draft supplemental EIS will be

available for public and agency review

and comment prior to the public

hearings.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and that all significant issues

are identified, comments and

suggestions are invited from all

interested parties. Comments or

questions concerning this proposed

action and the supplemental EIS should

be directed to the FHWA at the address

provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program 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: April 1, 1997.

G.P. Bill Wong,

Senior Transportation Engineer, Sacramento,

California.

[FR Doc. 97–8948 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 97–019; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1990

Mercedes-Benz 420 SEC Passenger

Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1990

Mercedes-Benz 420 SEC passenger cars

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 1990 MercedesBenz 420 SEC 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 May 8, 1997.

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 a.m. to 4 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

1990 Mercedes-Benz 420 SEC passenger

cars are eligible for importation into the

United States. The vehicle which

Champagne believes is substantially

similar is the 1990 Mercedes-Benz 560

SEC that was manufactured for

importation into, and sale in, the United

States and certified by its manufacturer,

Daimler Benz, A.G., as conforming to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16889

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared the 1990 Mercedes-Benz 420

SEC to the 1990 Mercedes-Benz 560

SEC, 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 1990 MercedesBenz 420 SEC, as originally

manufactured, conforms to many

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

in the same manner as the 1990

Mercedes-Benz 560 SEC, or is capable of

being readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

the 1990 Mercedes-Benz 420 SEC is

identical to the 1990 Mercedes-Benz 560

SEC with respect to compliance with

Standards Nos. 102 Transmission Shift

Lever Sequence. * * *, 103 Defrosting

and Defogging Systems, 104

Windshield Wiping and Washing

Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake

Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New

Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch

Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124

Accelerator Control Systems, 201

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,

202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering

Control Rearward Displacement, 205

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and

Door Retention Components, 207

Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt

Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, 212 Windshield

Retention, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,

219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and

302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicle is capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a

noncomplying symbol on the brake

failure indicator lamp; (b) installation of

a seat belt warning lamp that displays

the appropriate symbol; (c) recalibration

of the speedometer/odometer from

kilometers to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

Installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies; (b) installation of U.S.-

model front and rear sidemarker/

reflector assemblies; (c) installation of

U.S.-model tail lamp assemblies; (d)

installation of a high-mounted stop

lamp.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: Installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

Replacement of the convex passenger

side rearview mirror.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

Installation of a warning buzzer

microswitch in the steering lock

assembly and a warning buzzer.

Standard No. 118 Power Window

Systems: Rewiring of the power window

system so that the window transport is

inoperative when the ignition is

switched off.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection:

(a) Installation of a U.S. model seat

belt in the driver’s position, or a belt

webbing actuated microswitch inside

the driver’s seat belt retractor; (b)

installation of an ignition switch

actuated seat belt warning lamp and

buzzer; (c) replacement of the driver’s

side air bag and knee bolster with U.S.

model components. The petitioner

states that the vehicle is equipped with

a combination lap and shoulder

restraint that adjusts by means of an

automatic retractor and releases by

means of a single push button in each

front designated seating position, and

with a combination lap and shoulder

restraint that releases by means of a

single push button in each rear outboard

designated seating position.

Standard No. 214 Side Impact

Protection: Installation of reinforcing

beams.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System

Integrity: Installation of a rollover valve

in the fuel tank vent line.

Additionally, petitioner contends that

the bumpers on the non-U.S. certified

1990 Mercedes-Benz 420 SEC must be

reinforced or replaced to comply with

the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR

part 581.

The petitioner also states that a

vehicle identification number plate

must be affixed to the vehicle to meet

the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.

Petitioner lastly states that prior to

importation, the vehicle must be

brought into compliance with the parts

marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard found at 49 CFR

part 541.

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)(A) and

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

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: April 3, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–8921 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices

Debt Management Advisory

Committee; Meeting

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. App. sec. 10(a)(2), that a meeting

will be held at the U.S. Treasury

Department, 15th and Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on April

29 and 30, 1997, of the following debt

management advisory committee:

Public Securities Association

Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee

The agenda for the meeting provides

for a technical background briefing by

Treasury staff on April 29, followed by

a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury

or his designate that the committee

discuss particular issues, and a working

session. On April 30, the committee will

present a written report of its

recommendations.

The background briefing by Treasury

staff will be held at 11:30 a.m. Eastern

time on April 29 and will be open to the

public. The remaining sessions on April

29 and the committee’s reporting

session on April 30 will be closed to the

public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. sec.

10(d).

This notice shall constitute my

determination, pursuant to the authority

placed in heads of departments by 5

U.S.C. App. sec. 10(d) and vested in me

by Treasury Department Order No. 101–

05, that the closed portions of the

meeting are concerned with information

that is exempt from disclosure under 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest

requires that such meetings be closed to

the public because the Treasury

Department requires frank and full

advice from representatives of the

financial community prior to making its

final decision on major financing

operations. Historically, this advice has

been offered by debt management

advisory committees established by the

several major segments of the financial

community. When so utilized, such a