25880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Hereafter, referred to as heavy vehicles.

1. On October 25, 1994, the

Commission released a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 94–123, 59 FR 55402 (1994)

(‘‘Notice’’), soliciting comment on the

legal and policy justifications, in light of

current economic and technological

conditions, for the Prime Time Access

Rule, Section 73.658(k) of the

Commission’s Rules, and to consider the

continued need for the rule in its

current form. By an Order adopted on

December 7, 1994, the deadline for

filing comments was extended to March

7, 1995, and the deadline for filing reply

comments was extended to April 6,

1995. See Order Granting Extension of

Time for Filing Comments and Reply

Comments in MM Docket No. 94–123,

59 FR 64382 (1994). At the request of a

number of commenters in this

proceeding, the time for filing reply

comments was substantially extended to

May 12, 1995. See Order Granting

Extension of Time for Filing Comments

and Reply Comments in MM Docket No.

94–123, 60 FR 18793 (April 13, 1995).

2. On May 3, 1995, a motion for a

further extension of time for filing reply

comments in this proceeding was filed

by the Coalition to Enhance Diversity,

which states that it is authorized to

represent the Association of

Independent Television Stations, Inc.,

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., CBS Inc., King

World Productions, Inc., the Media

Access Project, the Motion Picture

Association of America, Inc., the

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,

the Network Affiliated Stations

Alliance, and Viacom, Inc. (‘‘Joint

Petitioners’’) in this request. The motion

requests that the deadline for filing

reply comments be extended from May

12, 1995, to May 26, 1995.

3. The Joint Petitioners contend that

the comments filed in this proceeding

include detailed economic studies on all

sides of the issues raised in the Notice.

In order to properly evaluate these

various economic studies, the parties

have agreed to make available certain

data underlying those studies, which

information has recently become

available and accessible for review at

the Commission. (To accommodate the

parties, this information is available at

the Commission’s Washington, D.C.,

headquarters and at the field office in

Hayward, California.) These parties,

who take differing views on the

continued need for the Prime Time

Access Rule, state that a brief extension

of time will permit the completion of

the evaluations and critiques of the

comprehensive economic analyses

submitted in this proceeding as called

for in the Notice. These parties maintain

that the grant of this request for a short

extension of time will serve the public

interest by permitting a more thorough

public and industry review of the

economic data, which would, in turn,

facilitate the submission of reply

comments that will prove more useful

in generating the comprehensive record

that the Commission seeks in this

proceeding.

4. As set forth in § 1.46 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.46, it is

our policy that extensions of time for

filing comments in rulemaking

proceedings shall not be routinely

granted. However, under the

circumstances described above, we

believe that the requested extension of

time to file reply comments is

warranted. This extension of time

should facilitate the development of a

full and complete record on the issues

raised in the Notice and, thus, it appears

reasonable to provide the commenting

parties additional time to analyze and

address these issues.

5. Accordingly, It is Ordered that the

above-mentioned motion for an

extension of time Is Granted, and that

the time for filing reply comments in

this proceeding is Extended to May 26,

1995.

6. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4(i) and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, and § 0.204(b), 0.283,

and 1.45 of the Commission’s Rules.

Federal Communications Commission.

Roy J. Stewart,

Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 94–11856 Filed 5–12–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 70–27, Notice 33 and Docket

No. 83–07, Notice 7]

RIN 2127–AF13

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Burnish Procedures for

Heavy Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking

proceeding.

SUMMARY: This notice terminates

rulemaking to amend Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard

No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with

respect to the burnish procedures for

medium and heavy vehicles. The agency

has determined that it would be

unnecessary to extend the period during

which a manufacturer may choose

between two burnish procedures since

manufacturers have been certifying

compliance to the brake standards based

on the ‘‘new’’ more representative

burnish procedure since September

1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Richard C. Carter, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SA., Washington, DC

20590. (202–366–5274).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake

Systems, and Standard No. 121, Air

Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121), specify

tests to measure whether medium and

heavy vehicles 1 equipped with

hydraulic or air brakes comply with the

standards’ performance requirements.

These vehicles are subject to ‘‘burnish’’

procedures conducted at the outset of

road testing and dynamometer testing.

The burnish procedures serve to

simulate the breaking-in of the brakes

on new vehicles under normal driving

conditions.

Until September 1, 1994, the

standards contained old and new

burnish procedures, identified in the

standards as option ‘‘a’’ and option ‘‘b,’’

respectively. The old burnish procedure

consisted of a series of brake

applications, known as ‘‘snubs,’’ that

result in the brakes being heated to not

more than the specified maximum

temperature of 550 °F.

In response to a petition from

International Harvester, the agency

amended the burnish procedures in a

final rule published on March 14, 1988

(49 FR 8191). The agency initiated

rulemaking because the temperature

limit, which was established with drum

brake designs in mind, appeared

inappropriate for disc brake designs.

Disc brake systems are designed to

operate at appreciably higher

temperatures than are drum brake

systems. As a result, it had been

difficult to avoid exceeding the

specified maximum temperature during

the burnish of vehicles with disc brake

systems.

After issuing several notices, the

agency added a new burnish procedure

in 1988 providing that the brakes on

heavy duty vehicles are to be burnished

by 500 snubs slowing the vehicle from

40 mph to 20 mph, without regard to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25881

2A memo has been placed in the docket

summarizing these meetings.

3 In the stopping distance NPRM, NHTSA

proposed an initial brake temperature of 250°F to

300°F. However, in the final rule the agency

concluded that an initial brake temperature of

between 150°F to 200°F is more appropriate. 60 FR

13292.

brake temperatures generated during the

burnish. NHTSA believes that under the

new burnish procedure, brakes will be

burnished in a manner that is more

realistic and representative of the

breaking-in that vehicle brakes actually

receive in service without favoring

drum brake designs over disc brake

designs.

NHTSA allowed a five-year transition

period for implementing the new

burnish procedure. The agency

provided this longer than normal lead

time to minimize the rulemaking’s cost

impact by allowing manufacturers to

phase-in any required changes to brake

systems as design changes were made.

During the transition period,

manufacturers could choose between

the old and new burnish procedures. As

established in the 1988 final rule, the

period lasted until September 1, 1993.

On and after that date, the only burnish

procedure in the standards was to be the

new one.

II. Petitions

NHTSA received petitions from Eaton

Corporation and the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association

(AAMA) concerning the effective date

for the new burnish procedure. Eaton

petitioned the agency either to permit

the old burnish procedure as an option

indefinitely or at least to postpone the

date on which the new procedure

became the only procedure, to allow the

agency to investigate problems

associated with that procedure.

The AAMA petitioned NHTSA to

delete the effective date for the new

brake burnish procedure. If AAMA’s

request were granted, a choice between

the old and new burnish procedures

would be allowed indefinitely. AAMA

stated that specifying only the new

procedure would result in increased

variability that could adversely affect

brake effectiveness. The petitioner also

believed that the new procedure would

increase the stringency of the parking

brake requirements because, it claimed,

braking performance generally degrades

at lower burnish temperatures. In

addition, AAMA stated that many

current vehicles that comply with the

brake standards after being subjected to

the old burnish procedure will not

comply when tested after being

subjected to the new burnish procedure.

It suggested that this noncompliance

was not indicative of a safety problem,

noting that it is not aware of any safety

problem arising from the braking

performance of vehicles tested after

using the old procedure.

After receiving these petitions,

NHTSA staff met with representatives of

Eaton, Freightliner, PACCAR, Navistar,

Rockwell, Lucas, Carlisle, and Ford.2

According to these representatives of

the heavy truck industry, the new

burnish procedure would result in

significant variability problems and

potential compliance problems.

Accordingly, they requested that

NHTSA either (1) Delay the September

1, 1993 effective date, (2) allow either

procedure indefinitely, or (3) develop a

new burnish procedure.

III. Interim Final Rule and Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

On August 30, 1993, NHTSA

published two notices in response to the

petitions for rulemaking from Eaton and

AAMA: an interim final rule extending

the period during which either the old

or new burnish procedures could be

used until September 1, 1994 (58 FR

45459); and a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to extend

the optional period for the new burnish

procedure an additional 18 months to

March 1, 1996. (58 FR 45476)

In justifying these notices, NHTSA

explained that the March 14, 1988 final

rule was not intended to impose

additional or more stringent

performance requirements for heavy

vehicles. Instead, the adoption of the

new burnish procedure was intended to

ensure that the compliance tests are

more representative of actual vehicle

break-in and to eliminate the current

burnish procedure’s bias against new

brake designs.

NHTSA stated that the time period

during which either burnish procedure

may be used should be extended. The

agency explained that without the delay

to September 1, 1994, vehicle

manufacturers would have faced a

significant cost burden related to

compliance testing and product

development, without corresponding

safety benefits. The agency further

explained that, under a February 23,

1993 proposal to reinstate stopping

distance requirements for heavy

vehicles, manufacturers would have had

to conduct two sets of compliance

testing using both the old and new

burnish procedures within the comment

period. (58 FR 11003, 11009). It further

explained that the agency needed to

assess the petitioners’ contention that

the new burnish procedures result in a

more stringent requirement.

In response to the proposal to extend

the optional burnish procedure until

March 1, 1996, the agency received

comments from AAMA, the Heavy Duty

Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC),

Ford, General Motors (GM), Chrysler,

and four brake manufacturers (Eaton,

Rockwell International, Lucas, and

Midland-Grau. The commenters

requested that vehicle manufacturers be

permitted to use either the old or new

burnish procedure indefinitely.

AAMA submitted test data on the

braking performance of combination

vehicles, including a vehicle tested at

NHTSA’s Vehicle Research Testing

Center (VRTC). AAMA stated that these

tests indicate that the proposed stopping

distance requirements and braking-in-acurve test could not be consistently met

unless the initial brake temperature was

reduced to between 150°F and 200°F

from 250° and 300°F. Specifically,

AAMA said that the proposed increase

in initial brake temperature 3 would

cause an increase in stopping distance,

and thus would cause a vehicle to fail

to comply with the proposed stopping

distance requirements.

As explained above, the new burnish

procedures took effect on September 1,

1994. Since that date, vehicle

manufacturers have been required to

certify compliance to the braking

standards using the new burnish

procedures and have not been permitted

to burnish brakes using the old

procedures. In proposing to extend

optional compliance with the old

procedure until March 1996, the agency

sought to simplify compliance for

vehicle manufacturers by only having

them conduct the braking tests once if

they relied on the old burnish

procedures. However, this consideration

became moot because the new burnish

procedures went into effect in

September and the agency was unable to

issue the stopping distance and stability

and control rulemakings prior to that

date.

Based on these considerations,

NHTSA has decided to terminate the

burnish rulemaking that would have

permitted optional compliance to the

old burnish procedures until March 1,

1996. As explained in the stopping

distance final rule, ‘‘vehicle

manufacturers have had sufficient time

to conduct any additional testing and to

make any necessary design changes in

order to meet the requirements of

Standard No. 121, with the new burnish

procedures.’’ (60 FR 13286, 13292) As a

result, vehicles must be burnished

pursuant to the new brake burnish

procedure set forth in S7.4.2.1(b) of

Standard No. 105 and in S6.1.8.1(b) of

Standard No. 121.
25882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA believes that the new burnish

procedure is more valid because it has

a lower energy input level that is closer

to the burnish achieved in actual use.

Accordingly, it would be inappropriate

to permit the old procedure indefinitely.

The agency further believes that

achieving compliance using the new

burnish procedure is feasible given the

industry’s considerable progress in

developing new brake linings that can

meet the brake system performance

requirements when using the new

burnish procedures. The agency notes

that the additional year allowed by the

interim final rule, together with the

initial five year transition period,

provided ample time for vehicle and

brake manufacturers to evaluate brake

block materials.

NHTSA believes that there is only

very limited validity to the

manufacturers’ argument that the new

burnish procedure is more stringent.

The objections to the new burnish

procedure come from those

manufacturers whose existing brake

systems have to be burnished to peak

perfection in order to pass the minimum

requirements. The new burnish

procedure is more stringent only in the

sense that it does not produce

temperatures that are as high as the old

procedure and in the sense that the

lower temperature of the burnish

reduces brake performance. NHTSA

notes that brake manufacturers are

continuing to develop brake block

materials that are less sensitive to

burnish and do not require high

temperatures of the old burnish to

complete the manufacturing process. As

these materials are developed, the new

procedure’s already limited effect will

become progressively smaller.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30162;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: May 10, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–11927 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Public Hearing

and Extension of Public Comment

Periods on Proposed Critical Habitat

Designation and Draft Economic

Analysis for the Pacific Coast

Population of the Western Snowy

Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

hearing and extension of public

comment periods.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

gives notice that public hearings will be

held on the proposed designation of

critical habitat for the Pacific coast

population of the western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). The

hearings will allow all interested parties

to submit oral or written comments on

the proposal. In addition, the Service

extends the public comment period on

all aspects of this proposed critical

habitat designation including the draft

economic analysis.

DATES: The public hearings will be held

from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Wednesday,

June 7, 1995, in Florence, Oregon; from

6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13,

1995, in Monterey, California; and from

2 p.m to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on

Thursday, June 15, 1995, in Eureka,

California. The public comment period

now closes on June 30, 1995. Any

comments received by the closing date

will be considered in the final decision

on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Public hearings will be held

in Florence, Oregon, at the Driftwood

Shores Conference Center, 88416 First

Avenue; in Monterey, California, at the

Hyatt Regency, 1 Old Golf Course Road;

and in Eureka, California, at the Eureka

Inn, 518 7th Street. Written comments

and materials may be submitted at the

hearings or sent directly to Mr. Joel A.

Medlin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E–

1803, Sacramento, California 95825–

1846. Comments and materials received

will be available for public inspection

during normal business hours, by

appointment, at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Karen J. Miller, Sacramento Field

Office, at the above address (telephone

(916) 979–2725).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover breeds primarily

on coastal beaches from southern

Washington to southern Baja California.

Other less common nesting habitat

includes salt pans, coastal dredge

disposal sites, dry salt ponds and salt

pond levees. Historically, the Pacific

coast population of the western snowy

plover nested at over 80 locations on the

coast of California, Oregon, and

Washington. Today only 28 major

nesting areas remain. In addition to loss

of nesting areas, the size of the coastal

population also has decline. Human

activity on beaches (walking, jogging,

walking pets, off-road vehicle use,

horseback riding, etc.) during the plover

breeding season, and encroachment of

exotic European beachgrass

(Ammophilia arenaria) are primary

factors in the observed decline of the

western snowy plover on the Pacific

coast. The Service expects that only

small portions (5 to 15 percent) of these

beaches would be affected by this

designation, if made final. The Pacific

coast population of the western snowy

plover was listed as a threatened species

without critical habitat on march 5,

1993.

A proposal was published in the

Federal Register (60 FR 11763) on

March 2, 1995, to designate 28 critical

habitat areas for the coastal population

of the western snowy plover. These 28

areas total approximately 20,000 acres

and about 210 miles of coastline, or

about 10 percent of the coastline in

California, Oregon, and Washington.

Two of the proposed critical habitat

areas are in Washington, seven are in

Oregon, and 19 are in California. The

areas range in size form less than 10

acres to over 2,000 acres.

Subsection 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act,

requires that a public hearing be held if

it is requested within 45 days of the

publication of a proposed rule. The

Service received several written

requests for public hearings from private

citizens and organizations. As a result,

the Service has scheduled three public

hearings to be held on Wednesday, June

7, 1995, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in

Florence Oregon at the Driftwood

Shores Conference Center, 88416 First

Avenue; Tuesday, June 13, 1995, from 6

p.m. to 8 p.m. in Monterey, California,

at the Hyatt Regency, 1 Old Golf Course

Road; and Thursday, June 15, 1995,