Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3773

CALIFORNIA—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date1 Type Date1 Type

* * * * * * *

San Diego Area ...................... ............................................................ ......................

San Diego County ................................................... ........................... Nonattainment ......................................... ........................... Serious.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–1317 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[GN Docket No. 93–252, PR Docket No. 89–

553; FCC 94–331]

Implemenation of Sections 3(n) and

332 of the Communications Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule; Order on

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This Order on

Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 93–

252 and PR Docket No. 89–553 is a

partial reconsideration of the Third

Report and Order in GN Docket No. 93–

252, (‘‘CMRS Order’’). In this

reconsideration, the Commission

decides not to suspend granting of

secondary site authorizations for

incumbent 900 MHz Specialized Mobile

Radio (‘‘SMR’’) systems, as originally

determined in the CMRS Order. In the

CMRS Order, the Commission decided

not to grant any further secondary site

authorizations, which would have

allowed existing 900 MHz SMR

operators to construct facilities outside

of their Designated Filing Areas

(‘‘DFAs’’), enabling them to expand

their systems or link facilities in

different markets. The Commission had

reasoned that, even though these

secondary sites would not be entitled to

protection from co-channel interference

and may have to discontinue operation

eventually, it would contaminate the

900 MHz band to continue to license

secondary sites in advance of Major

Trading Area (‘‘MTA’’) licensing. On

reconsideration, however, the

Commission concludes that such an

outright prohibition on further

secondary site licensing imposes a

significant burden on existing 900 MHz

SMR licensees that are building out

their systems and intend to become

MTA licensees, which would also delay

the availability of service to customers.

Also, the Commission emphasizes that

secondary site operators assume the risk

of having to discontinue operations in

the event of interference to an MTAlicensed system. Thus, the Commission

will continue to process and grant

secondary site authorizations to

qualified applicants.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy J. Zoslov at (202) 418–0620,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,

Commercial Radio Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission Order on

Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 93–

252 and PR Docket No. 89–553, adopted

December 21, 1994, and released

December 22, 1994. The full text of this

Order on Reconsideration is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration

1. The Order, taken on the

Commission’s own motion, reverses the

Commission’s decision in the CMRS

Order, 59 FR 59945 (11/21/94), to

suspend further granting of secondary

site authorizations for 900 MHz SMR

systems pending the implementation of

new service and licensing rules for

those SMR systems.

2. By way of background, the

Commission adopted new licensing

rules for this service in the CMRS Order,

dividing 200 channels into 20 blocks of

10 channels each, using MTAs as the

service area for each license, and using

competitive bidding selection for

mutually exclusive applications. The

incumbent systems already licensed in

the DFAs (which correspond to the top

50 major markets) were grandfathered,

i.e., given co-channel interference

protection for existing facilities, but

were not allowed to expand beyond

existing service areas unless they

obtained MTA licenses. Some

incumbents had been granted

authorizations to construct facilities

outside their DFAs to expand their

systems or link facilities in different

markets, which became ‘‘secondary

sites,’’ i.e., not entitled to co-channel

interference protection, when the

Commission discontinued primary site

licensing in 1986. The CMRS Order

established that any 900 MHz SMR

secondary sites licensed before August

10, 1994, would be entitled to primary

site protection, so as to avoid

discontinuation of operations for such

sites that had become integral to the

existing systems. In this connection, the

Commission decided not to license any

further secondary sites to avoid

contamination of the 900 MHz band in

advance of MTA licensing.

3. In this Order, the Commission

concludes that an outright prohibition

on further licensing of secondary sites

imposes a significant burden on 900

MHz incumbents who are building out

systems and who intend to become

MTA licensees. A suspension of

licensing would delay service to

consumers until the new 900 MHz rules

are adopted and selection of licensees

takes place. Also, as secondary sites are

not entitled to interference protection,

and secondary site-holders assume the

risk of discontinuation, the Commission

concludes that this policy will not

contribute to spectrum contamination.

Thus, the Commission will continue to

grant secondary site authorizations to

qualified SMR applicants in the 900

MHz band, subject to strict enforcement

of the no-interference policy regarding

secondary operation, defined in 47 CFR

90.7.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90

Administrative practice and

procedure, Radio.
3774 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–1219 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 94–57; Notice 02]

RIN 2127–AF33

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard

No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, to eliminate the sole

exception to the requirement in

paragraph S4.1.2 for the installation of

anchorages for either a Type 1 or a Type

2 seat belt assembly at any designated

seating position for which Standard No.

208, Occupant Crash Protection,

requires the installation of a Type 1 or

a Type 2 seat belt. The sole exception

is for passenger seats in buses. The

practical effect of Standard No. 210’s

not requiring anchorages for the bus

passenger seats is that the anchorages

for the Type 1 seat belt assemblies

required at passenger seats in small

buses are not currently required to

comply with the strength, location and

other performance requirements of

Standard No. 210. This final rule will

correct this oversight.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective on

February 21, 1995.

Petition Date: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than February 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Clarke Harper, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NRM–12, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–4916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

13, 1994, NHTSA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing

to require the installation of anchorages

for either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt

assembly at any seating position for

which Standard No. 208 requires the

installation of a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat

belt (59 FR 35670). As explained in the

NPRM, NHTSA believed this

amendment was necessary to correct an

oversight in a final rule published on

November 2, 1989. That final rule

amended Standard No. 208, Occupant

Crash Protection, to require, among

other changes, Type 2 (lap/shoulder)

seat belts at all front outboard seating

positions in small buses and Type 1

(lap) seat belts at all other seating

positions in small buses (54 FR 46257).

In the preamble to the final rule, the

agency stated that it did not need to

make corresponding amendments to

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, to require the installation

of anchorages. Anchorages required by

Standard No. 210 must meet the

strength, location and other

performance requirements of that

standard. In making this statement, the

agency overlooked the exceptions in

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 210. That section

requires the installation of anchorages

for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt

assembly for all designated seating

positions, except positions required to

have an anchorage for a Type 2 seat belt

assembly and except for passenger seats

in buses. Thus, the anchorages for the

Type 1 seat belt assemblies required at

passenger seats in small buses by the

November 2, 1989 final rule are not

currently required to comply with

Standard No. 210. The NPRM was

intended to correct this oversight.

The agency received three comments

on this NPRM. All of the commenters

concurred with the suggested

amendment with one comment. The

comment from Ford Motor Company

concerned an error in another final rule

which omitted the term ‘‘forwardfacing’’ from section S4.1.5.1(a)(3) of

Standard No. 208. That error was

corrected in a separate final rule

published on November 29, 1994 (59 FR

60917). As none of the comments

addressed issues associated with the

July 13 NPRM, NHTSA is adopting the

amendments as proposed.

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to

make the amendment effective 30 days

after publication, since NHTSA believed

that the anchorages currently being

installed by the manufacturers comply

with the requirements of Standard No.

210. One commenter specifically

addressed this issue and agreed that its

products already complied with

Standard No. 210’s requirements.

Therefore, this final rule will be

effective 30 days after publication.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ NHTSA has considered

the impact of this rulemaking action

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures and determined that the

action is not ‘‘significant’’ under those

policies and procedures. While these

anchorages are not currently required to

comply with Standard No. 210,

commenters did not disagree with

NHTSA’s stated belief that

manufacturers do design these

anchorages to comply with these

requirements. Therefore, NHTSA does

not expect any impact from this rule

and concludes that preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

explained above, NHTSA does not

anticipate any impact from this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

NHTSA notes that there are no

requirements for information collection

associated with this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final

rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety