Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16887

11 In approving the rule change, the Commission

has considered the proposed rule changes’ impact

on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

15 U.S.C. § 78c(f).

12The PSE has represented that it has

experienced no operational problems and received

no complaints regarding the operation of the Book

Pilot Program. Telephone conversation between

Janet W. Russell-Hunter, Special Counsel, Office of

Market Supervision, Division of Market Regulation,

SEC, and Michael D. Pierson, Senior Attorney,

Regulatory Policy, PSE, April 1, 1997.

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

principles of trade, and to protect

investors and the public interest.11

Allowing the PSE to appoint up to six

additional LMMs to the Book Pilot

Program and increasing the number of

options symbols available to the

program by 110 constitutes a reasonable

and limited expansion of the Book Pilot

Program. The expansion should provide

the Exchange with sufficient experience

administering the pilot in order to better

determine whether the Book Pilot

Program should be made permanent

upon its scheduled expiration on

October 31, 1997.12

As noted in the Pilot Approval Order,

before the Book Pilot Program can be

approved on a permanent basis, or

further extended, the Exchange must

provide the Commission, within 6

months prior to its expiration, with a

report on the operation of the Book Pilot

Program. Specifically, the PSE must

submit an updated pilot program report

by April 1997 that addresses: (1)

Whether there have been any

complaints regarding the operation of

the pilot; (2) whether the PSE has taken

any disciplinary or performance action

against any member due to the

operation of the pilot; (3) whether the

PSE has reassigned any options issues

traded pursuant to the pilot; and (4) the

impact of the pilot on the bid/ask

spreads, depth and continuity in PSE

options markets.

IV. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,13 that the

proposed rule change (File No. SR–PSE–

96–45), is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.14

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8877 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: San

Mateo County, California

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to supplement

a final environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that a

supplement to a final environmental

impact statement will be prepared for a

proposed highway project in San Mateo

County, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

R. Schultz, Chief, District OperationsNorth, Federal Highway Administration,

980 Ninth Street, Suite 400, Sacramento,

California 95814–2724; Telephone:

(916) 498–5041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the

California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans), will prepare a supplement to

the final environmental impact

statement (EIS) on a proposal to

improve State Route (SR) 1 in San

Mateo County, California. The original

final EIS for the improvements (FHWA–

CA–EIS–83–14–F) was approved on

April 16, 1986. The project study limits

of alternatives considered in the final

EIS extended from Half Moon Bay

Airport, between Moss Beach and El

Granada, on the south to Linda Mar

Boulevard in Pacifica on the north, a

distance of approximately 11.3 km (7

miles).

The preferred alternative, identified

in the final EIS and selected in the

Record of Decision signed on May 30,

1986, is known as the Martini Creek

alignment alternative. From the

southern end, this alternative begins

north of the southern project study limit

on SR 1, 0.2 km (0.1 mile) north of

Montara near the Chart House

Restaurant. From there it swings inland,

crosses Martini Creek, curves seaward

(west) and then northeasterly, proceeds

over the San Pedro Mountain saddle

and down into the City of Pacifica

where it rejoins SR 1 at Linda Mar

Boulevard. The proposed project is a

two-land, controlled access facility;

however, since the entire project on

both sides of the summit exceeds six

percent, the project design includes an

uphill slow vehicle lane in each

direction. The proposed project is

approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles) in

length.

Litigation regarding the project was

commenced in U.S. District Court in the

Northern District of California in June

1986 (Sierra Club, et al. v. United States

Department of Transportation, et al.,

Civ. No. 86–3384 DLJ). The project has

been enjoined since September 1986,

prior to the commencement of any

construction. Ultimately, the District

Court found that the final EIS was

inadequate only in its discussion and

analysis of noise impacts and required

a re-analysis of those impacts, as set

forth in the Court’s Orders of April 3,

1989, and April 2, 1990. Thereafter, in

1995, FHWA and Caltrans prepared a

limited supplemental EIS for the

purpose of addressing the noise impact

analysis deficiencies in the final EIS, as

determined in the litigation.

Based on public comments received,

the August 10, 1995 Record of Decision

regarding the supplemental EIS

included a commitment by the FHWA

to address the issue of a tunnel

alternative in the reevaluation of the

1986 final EIS. A tunnel alternative was

considered earlier in the project

development process, but has been

withdrawn from active consideration

prior to the issuance of the draft EIS that

was the basis for the 1986 final EIS. The

reevaluation was to be undertaken since

major steps to advance the project had

not occurred within three years after the

approval of the final EIS. 23 CFR

771.129(b). The intent of the

reevaluation of the final EIS was to

determine whether or not new

information or circumstances relevant to

environmental concerns and bearing on

the proposed project or its impacts

would result in significant

environmental impacts not evaluated in

the final EIS. 23 CFR 771.130(a)(2).

In response to requests from local

agencies and the public, Caltrans hired

an independent consulting firm to

conduct a tunnel feasibility study.

Based upon the results of the tunnel

feasibility report issued in October

1996, and the updated cost estimates for

the revised highway bypass alternative

(now $117 million), FHWA and Caltrans

have determined that a tunnel

alternative is a reasonable alternative for

the proposed project that should be

fully evaluated in the environmental

process. Therefore, a second

supplement to the 1986 final EIS will be

prepared and will include an analysis of

both the updated Martini Creek bypass

alternative and a tunnel alternative.

Since the purpose of a reevaluation is to

determine whether or not the original

EIS remains valid, FHWA’s decision to

prepare a full supplemental EIS (as

compared with the 1995 supplemental

EIS which was of limited scope) means

that a reevaluation of the 1986 final EIS

is no longer necessary.
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.