26002 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: The effective date of June 27,

1995, for the final rule published under

Docket MC–93–17 on December 29,

1994, (59 FR 67544) is extended to

September 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Peter C. Chandler, Office of Motor

Carrier Research and Standards, HCS–

10, (202) 366–5763; or Mr. Charles E.

Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel,

HCC–20, (202) 366–1354, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

(49 U.S.C. 5901–5907, 31132, 31136, 31502,

and 31504; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: May 11, 1995.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–12066 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 552, 554, 573, 576, and

577

[Docket No. 93–68; Notice 3]

RIN 2127–AD83

Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect and

Noncompliance Orders; Standards

Enforcement and Defect

Investigations; Defect and

Noncompliance Reports; Record

Retention; and Defect and

Noncompliance Notification

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Response to petitions for

extension of effective date of final rule;

denial of petitions for extension of time

to petition for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In this notice, the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) rescinds the May 5, 1995,

effective date for compliance with the

final rule published in the Federal

Register on April 5, 1995 (60 FR 17254)

and adopts a new effective date of July

7, 1995. The rescission of the effective

date and adoption of a new effective

date applies to all sections of 49 CFR

part 552, 554, 573, 576, and 577 that

were amended by the final rule.

The agency is taking this action in

response to petitions filed by several

manufacturers for suspension of the

effective date of the final rule. They

have also filed petitions for

reconsideration of various provisions of

the final rule, which are not addressed

by this notice. The agency also denies

the petitions of Ford Motor Company to

extend the 30-day time period for filing

petitions for reconsideration of the final

rule to June, and the petition of Chrysler

Corporation to extend the time for filing

of petitions for reconsideration until

July 10, 1995.

DATES: The final rule published in the

Federal Register on April 5, 1995 (60 FR

17254) will become effective on July 7,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan D. White, Office of Defects

Investigation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Room 5319, Washington, DC

20590; (202) 366–5227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

5, 1995, the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (‘‘NHTSA’’)

published in the Federal Register a final

rule amending several provisions of its

regulations that pertain to its

enforcement of the provisions of

Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United

States Code, with respect to the

statutory obligations to provide

notification and remedy without charge

for motor vehicles and items of motor

vehicle equipment that have been

determined not to comply with a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard or

to contain a defect related to motor

vehicle safety. The final rule was to be

effective on May 5, 1995.

In the several days prior to the

effective date of the final rule, NHTSA

received from several manufacturers

(General Motors Corporation (‘‘GM’’),

Ford Motor Company (‘‘Ford’’), Chrysler

Corporation (‘‘Chrysler’’) and PACCAR,

Inc. (‘‘PACCAR’’)) petitions for

reconsideration of various provisions of

the final rule and to suspend the

effective date for 60 or 90 days

(PACCAR and Chrysler, respectively), or

indefinitely (GM and Ford). As grounds

for the petitions for a delay in the

effective date, the manufacturers assert

that compliance by the effective date is

impossible, and that it will take them

periods ranging from two months to a

year to bring themselves into

compliance.

While the agency does not believe

that either an indefinite or 90-day

suspension of the effective date is

appropriate or necessary, it has decided

to grant the petitions to suspend the

effective date to the extent of rescinding

the original May 5 effective date and

adopting a new effective date of July 7,

1995.

The filing of petitions for

reconsideration is not ordinarily

considered to be sufficient in itself to

warrant postponing the effective date of

a final rule. However, the agency

believes that in the circumstances

presented in this instance, the

establishment of a new effective date for

this final rule is reasonable and

appropriate. The original effective date

was May 5, 1995. The manufacturers

have presented NHTSA with

information that makes a credible

showing that they are not capable of

achieving compliance with at least some

provisions of the final rule by May 5,

and that it will be some months before

they are able to do so. Moreover, in view

of the short time period between the

filing of the petitions and the original

effective date, it is not feasible and

specify merely the particular provisions

that appear to present the greatest

difficulty.

To address this situation, the agency

has decided that, rather than grant the

petitions by suspending the effective

date indefinitely, it will rescind the May

5, 1995, effective date of the entire final

rule and adopt a new effective date of

July 7, 1995. If more time is needed for

particular provisions, the agency will

take appropriate action prior to that

time.

The Agency is denying the petitions

by Ford and Chrysler to extend the 30-

day time period for filing petitions for

reconsideration of the final rule. 49 CFR

§ 553.35. It will, however, treat Ford’s

letter of April 28, 1995, and Chrysler’s

letter of May 5, 1995, as petitions for

reconsideration.

The agency wishes to note that it does

intend to give full and careful

consideration to the pending petitions

for reconsideration of the final rule.

However, it cannot predict what its

ultimate decision will be on those

petitions. While the petitions are under

consideration, it expects the

manufacturers to continue to take the

steps necessary to bring themselves into

compliance with all provisions of final

rule as expeditiously as possible.

For the foregoing reasons, the

petitions to suspend the effective date of

the final rule are granted to the extent

that the original effective date is

rescinded and a new effective date of

July 7, 1995, is adopted.

Issued on: May 8, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12011 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M