9788 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4See footnote 2, supra.

5 In addition to the letters received from these

equipment manufacturers, certain other interested

parties, including 220 MHz licensees, have

submitted requests to the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau asking for

construction deadline extensions of up to three

years.

requests from three 220 MHz radio

equipment manufacturers to extend the

current construction deadline beyond

April 4, 1995. The first of these was

submitted by SEA, Inc. (SEA) in a letter

sent to Regina M. Keeney, Chief,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,

on January 17, 1995. SEA asks that the

deadline be extended to December 31,

1995 for those licensees who have, by

placing equipment orders with

manufacturers, demonstrated their

intent to construct their 220 MHz

stations. SEA argues that this extension

is needed because the manufacturing

capacity of the companies producing

220 MHz equipment ‘‘is not sufficient to

fill existing orders by the April 4

deadline’’ and that those licensees who

have placed orders ‘‘should not be

required to forfeit their licenses’’ due to

manufacturers’ inability to deliver

equipment by that date. As further

support for its request, SEA contends

that the Evans v. FCC4 court appeal

caused licensees to delay placing orders,

and that, upon dismissal of the appeal,

manufacturers were required suddenly

to deliver equipment by a ‘‘single,

across-the-board’’ deadline applicable to

all licensees. SEA observes that, had the

court case not occurred, manufacturers

would have had to satisfy the less

difficult requirement of filling orders to

meet the progressive 8-month

construction deadlines of the

approximately 3,600 individual stations

that were authorized over an extended

period.

3. E.F. Johnson Company (EFJ),

another 220 MHz equipment

manufacturer, in a letter sent to Regina

M. Keeney on January 25, 1995,

supports SEA’s request for an extension

until December 31, 1995 for those 220

MHz licensees who have timely placed

an equipment order with a manufacturer

offering type-accepted equipment. EFJ

argues that the current ‘‘compressed

manufacturing and delivery schedule

can simply not be met, even with the

considerable resources [the company]

will commit to the process’’ and

contends that if an extension is not

granted, the Commission will

‘‘irreparably harm the nascent 220 MHz

industry and seriously set back efforts to

employ spectrum efficient narrowband

technology on a widespread basis.’’

4. Finally, the third manufacturer,

Linear Modulation Technology Limited

(LMT), a wholly-owned subsidiary of

the Securicor Group plc, in a letter sent

to Regina M. Keeney on February 1,

1995, also expresses support for the

granting of an extension to December

31, 1995. LMT claims that, while it will

be able to construct a significant number

of 220 MHz systems by the April 4, 1995

deadline, it will not be able to deliver

and construct by that date many of the

orders for the ‘‘approximately one

thousand full systems that licensees or

managers of 220 MHz systems have

attempted to place with LMT.’’ LMT

contends that, if those licensees who

have tried to construct their systems by

the deadline lose their licenses due to

the unavailability of equipment, the

prospects for the successful deployment

of the 220 MHz service ‘‘will

significantly diminish’’ and the U.S. 220

MHz industry will be placed ‘‘in serious

jeopardy.’’ 5

5. The manufacturers of 220 MHz

equipment have indicated that, despite

their best efforts, equipment ordered by

many non-nationwide 220 MHz

licensees will not be delivered in time

to enable such licensees to construct

their stations by April 4, 1995. The

Bureau believes that these licensees

should be afforded some measure of

relief from the current construction

deadline. The Bureau is also concerned

that a number of licensees, aware of

manufacturers’ production difficulties,

have delayed the placement of orders or

have chosen not to place orders at all

under the assumption that the orders

could not be filled by April 4, 1995.

Therefore, to provide relief to all

licensees—those that have placed orders

as well as those that must still do so—

the Bureau extends to December 31,

1995 the deadline for nonnationwide

220 MHz licensees to construct their

stations and place them in operation.

6. Accordingly, for good cause shown,

It is Ordered That the requests by SEA

Inc., E.F. Johnson Company, Linear

Modulation Technology Limited and

other parties for extension of the

deadline for construction of nonnationwide 220 MHz stations are

Granted to the extent indicated herein

and otherwise denied.

Federal Communications Commission.

Regina M. Keeney,

Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–4381 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 501

Organization and Delegation of Powers

and Duties

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the

delegations of authority within the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration by transferring, from the

Associate Administrator for

Enforcement to the Director, Office of

Vehicle Safety Compliance, the

responsibility for granting and denying

petitions for import eligibility decisions

that are submitted to the agency under

49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1) (formerly section

108(c)(3)(C)(i)(I) of the National Traffic

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act)).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This delegation is

effective as of February 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Coleman Sachs, Office of the Chief

Counsel (NCC–10), National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC

20590 (202–366–5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice amends the delegations of

authority within the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

to reflect the transfer of responsibilities

from NHTSA’s Associate Administrator

for Enforcement to one of the Associate

Administrator’s subordinates, the

Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance. Under the existing

delegations of authority, the Associate

Administrator for Enforcement is

responsible for the ‘‘[g]ranting and

denying of petitions for import

eligibility determinations submitted to

the NHTSA by motor vehicle

manufacturers and registered importers

* * *.’’ 49 CFR 501.8(g)(3). Regulations

establishing the procedures for making

these determinations are found at 49

CFR part 593.

Those regulations implement 49

U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) (formerly section

108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the Act), which

provides that a motor vehicle 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 it is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 9789

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115

(formerly section 114 of the Act), 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. Where there is

no substantially similar U.S.-certified

motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(II) of

the Act) permits a nonconforming motor

vehicle to be admitted into the United

States if its safety features comply with,

or are capable of being altered to comply

with, all applicable safety standards.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a) (formerly

section 108(c)(3)(C)(i) of the Act), these

import eligibility decisions may be

made ‘‘on the initiative of the Secretary

of Transportation or on petition of a

manufacturer or importer registered

under (49 U.S.C. 30141(c).’’ The

Secretary’s authority to make these

determinations is delegated to the

Administrator of NHTSA under 49 CFR

1.50(a). The Administrator, in turn,

delegated to the Associate

Administrator for Enforcement, under

49 CFR 501.8(g)(3), the responsibility for

granting and denying petitions for

import eligibility determinations

submitted to the agency by registered

importers and manufacturers.

This notice transfers these

responsibilities to the Director of

NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance. This transfer will eliminate

one level of management review for

these actions, thereby reducing the

processing time for the petitions and

some of the costs associated with the

importation of the vehicles to which the

petitions relate.

The amendment made through this

notice relates solely to the organization

and assignment of duties within the

agency, and has no substantive

regulatory effect. It is therefore not

subject to the notice and comment and

the effective date requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act. This

amendment is also not subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12866

or to the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures.

Notice and the opportunity for public

comment are therefore not required, and

this amendment is effective

immediately upon publication in the

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 501

Authority, Delegations.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 501 is amended as follows:

PART 501—ORGANIZATION AND

DELEGATION OF POWERS AND

DUTIES

1. The authority citation for part 501

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. secs. 105 and 322;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 501.8 is amended by

removing paragraph (g)(3), and by

adding a new paragraph (l), to read as

follows:

§ 501.8 Delegations.

* * * * *

(l) Director, Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance, Enforcement. The Director,

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,

Enforcement, is delegated authority to

exercise the powers and perform the

duties of the Administrator with respect

to granting and denying petitions for

import eligibility decisions submitted to

the NHTSA by motor vehicle

manufacturers and registered importers

under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1).

Issued on: February 15, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4264 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M