13686 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

complete corrective program. Moreover,

if the Administrator found a lack of

good faith on the part of the District,

both sanctions under section 179(b)

would apply after the expiration of the

18-month period until the

Administrator determined that the

District had come into compliance. In

any case, if, six months after application

of the first sanction, the District still had

not submitted a corrective program that

EPA found complete, a second sanction

would be required.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove the District’s

complete corrective program, EPA

would be required to apply one of the

section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18

months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

District had submitted a revised

program and EPA had determined that

it corrected the deficiencies that

prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if

the Administrator found a lack of good

faith on the part of the District, both

sanctions under section 179(b) would

apply after the expiration of the 18-

month period until the Administrator

determined that the District had come

into compliance. In all cases, if, six

months after EPA applied the first

sanction, the District had not submitted

a revised program that EPA had

determined corrected the deficiencies

that prompted disapproval, a second

sanction would be required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the end of an interim approval

period if the District has not timely

submitted a complete corrective

program or EPA has disapproved a

submitted corrective program.

Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to the District’s program by the

expiration of an interim approval and

that expiration occurs after November

15, 1995, EPA must promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for the District upon

interim approval expiration.

4. Approval of Preconstruction Program

for Section 112(g) Case-by-Case MACT

Determinations

Clark County will be required to

implement the Maximum Achievable

Control Technology requirements of

section 112(g) of the Act as a component

of the part 70 program. The EPA is

proposing to approve the District’s

preconstruction permitting program,

found in section 12 of the District rules,

under the authority of title V and part

70 solely for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) during the

transition period between the effective

date of 112(g) and District adoption of

a 112(g) rule. EPA has published an

interpretive notice in the Federal

Register that interprets section 112(g) to

allow State and local agencies to delay

implementing 112(g) of the Act until

EPA promulgates a final 112(g) rule.

Alternatively, State and local agencies

may implement the requirements of

112(g) prior to EPA promulgation of the

112(g) rule as a matter of State or local

law. 60 FR 8333 (February 14, 1995) The

notice also states that EPA is

considering whether to further delay the

effective date of section 112(g) beyond

the date of promulgation of the Federal

rule so as to allow State and local

agencies time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule. EPA will

provide for any such additional delay in

the final section 112(g) rulemaking.

Unless and until EPA provides for such

an additional postponement of section

112(g), the District must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the

period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption

of implementing District regulations and

may choose to implement section 112(g)

sooner as a matter of local law.

For this reason, EPA is proposing to

approve the District’s preconstruction

review program as a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during the

transition period between promulgation

of the section 112(g) rule and District

adoption of rules specifically designed

to implement section 112(g). However,

since approval is intended solely to

confirm that State and local agencies

have a mechanism to implement section

112(g) during the transition period, the

approval itself will be without effect if

EPA decides in the final section 112(g)

rule that there will be no transition

period. The EPA is proposing that

twelve months will be adequate for the

District to adopt implementing

regulations but solicits comments on

whether this timeframe will be

adequate.

5. Approval of Program for Straight

Delegation of Section 112 Standards

Under the Authority of Section 112(l) of

the Act

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

General Provisions subpart A and

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that the District’s

program contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements

under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also

proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of

the District’s program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that

are unchanged from Federal standards

as promulgated. This program for

delegations only applies to sources

covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed full/interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in a docket maintained at the

EPA Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this proposed full/interim approval.

The principal purposes of the docket

are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval/disapproval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by April 13,

1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

Part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental Protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Dated: February 25, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6267 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13687

1See AMSC, Motion for Extension of Time, ET

Docket No. 95–18 at 1–2 (February 22, 1995).

2See COMSAT, Comments on Motion for

Extension of Time, ET Docket No. 95–18 at 1–2

(February 27, 1995).

3See AMSC Motion at 2, COMSAT Comments at

2.

4Letter from N. Leventhal, Leventhal, Senter &

Lerman to W. Caton, Federal Communications

Commission, February 27, 1995; Motorola,

Comments in Support of Motion for Extension of

Time (February 27, 1995).

5See National Association of Broadcasters et al.,

No Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time, ET

Docket No. 95–18 (February 28, 1995).

6See Celsat, Inc., Opposition to Motion for

Extension of Time, ET Docket No. 95–18 at 3–4

(February 27, 1995).

7See Id. at 4.

8See Id. at 4–5.

9See 47 CFR 1.46(a).

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

[ET Docket No. 95–18; DA 95–426]

Allocation of Spectrum at 2 GHz for

Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

time.

SUMMARY: By this order, the Chief,

Office of Engineering and Technology,

extends the deadline for filing

comments in response to the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in this

proceeding on allocation of spectrum at

2 GHz for use by the Mobile-Satellite

Service. This Order grants the petition

of the American Mobile Satellite

Corporation for an extension of the

deadline for comments. The petitioner

and commenters argue that preparations

under way for the 1995 World

Radiocommunications Conference and

meetings being held among members of

the Mobile-Satellite Service,

broadcasting, microwave and private

radio communities will produce

information pertinent to this

proceeding, and request the extension in

order to integrate this information into

their comments. Although Commission

policy not to routinely grant petitions

for extension of time, we agree that this

information will allow us to make better

informed decisions, and that the

requested extension is in the public

interest. We therefore find good cause

has been shown for extension of the

comment period, and order that the

comment deadline in this proceeding is

extended form March 9, 1995, to May 5,

1995; and that the reply comment

deadline is extended from March 27,

1995, to June 6, 1995.

DATES: Comments are due May 5, 1995.

Reply comments are due June 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean White, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 776–1624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

matter of Amendment of Section 2.106

of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate

Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the

Mobile-Satellite Service.

[ET Docket No. 95–18 RM–7927]

Order Granting Request to Defer

Comment Dates

Adopted: March 3, 1995.

Released: March 8, 1995.

By the Office of Engineering and

Technology.

1. On February 22, 1995, the

American Mobile Satellite Corporation

(AMSC) petitioned the Commission to

extend the pleading cycle for comments

to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making

in the above-captioned proceeding, ET

Docket No. 95–18, FCC 95–39, released

January 31, 1995 (60 FR 11644, March

2, 1995). AMSC requests an extension

for comments from March 9, 1995 to

May 5, 1995; and for reply comments

form March 27, 1995 to June 6, 1995.

2. AMSC, one of the original

petitioners in this proceeding, observes

that preparations for the 1995

Worldwide Radiocommunications

Conference (WRC–95) are well under

way, and that many of the entities likely

to comment in this proceeding are part

of the Industry Advisory Committee to

the WRC–95 Conference Preparation

Meeting (CPM), to be held March 22-

April 5, 1995, in Geneva. The CPM will

consider, inter alia, technical studies

pertaining to sharing of the 2 GHz band

between mobile-satellite and terrestrial

users.1 In supporting comments,

COMSAT Corporation (COMSAT) states

that meetings are currently ongoing

between the mobile-satellite community

and the broadcasting and microwave

communities to evaluate the possibility

of satellite-terrestrial sharing in this

band and to consider issues relating to

a possible relocation of current

broadcast and microwave licensees in

the band. COMSAT will use data

developed in this process to conduct

computer simulations of potential

mutual interference between MobileSatellite Service (MSS) and terrestrial

users.2 AMSC and COMSAT also point

out that the staffs of many entities likely

to comment in this proceeding are

intensely preparing for WRC–95 and

other international meetings, including

drafting reply comments to the

Commission’s Notice of Inquiry in

preparation for WRC–95, IC Docket No.

94–31, FCC 95–36, 60 FR 8994,

February 16, 1995 3 AMSC argues that

extending the comment and reply

comment periods will allow

commenters to gather more information

and take more time and care in

preparing complete and precise

comments, which will provide us with

more complete information upon which

to base our decisions in this proceeding.

In addition to COMSAT, TRW Inc. and

Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.

filed comments in support of AMSC’s

petition.4 The National Association of

Broadcasters has stated that it has no

objection to extending the comment

periods.5

3. Celsat, Inc. (Celsat), another

petitioner in this proceeding, opposes

AMSC’s petition for extension of time.

Celsat argues that most of the

frequencies at issue in this proceeding

were allocated for MSS use at the 1992

World Administrative Radio

Conference, and it is therefore

unnecessary to wait for WRC–95 or its

preparatory meetings to make this

allocation. Further, adds Celsat, the

WRC–95 CPM will primarily involve

technical, regulatory and procedural

constraints associated with additional

MSS allocations in the 1–3 GHz bands,

and this allocation is not an issue at that

meeting.6 Celsat also contends that the

meetings between the MSS community

and broadcasting and microwave

licensees are preliminary in nature, and

provide no basis for delaying this

proceeding.7 Celsat argues that we have

recognized that it is in the public

interest to expeditiously implement and

license MSS, and we should therefore

not delay this proceeding.8

4. Although the Commission does not

routinely grant extensions of time,9 we

agree with AMSC and supporting

commenters that the public interest

would be better served if we permit

additional time for submitting

comments in this proceeding. Not only

would an extension provide additional

time for gathering and evaluating data

on MSS-terrestrial sharing in the

proposed allocation, but meetings

between the MSS community and the

incumbents of the candidate band will

be helpful in establishing a sharing and

relocation regime acceptable to all

affected parties. We find that comments

informed by the results of WRC–95

preparations and industry consultation

will allow the Commission to make

better decisions than would be possible

without this information. The twomonth delay in this proceeding is

justified by the quantity and quality of

information we will have as a result. On

balance, we find that the public interest

would best be served by granting the
13688 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

extension. Accordingly, for good cause

shown, it is ordered That the date for

filing comments in this matter is

extended to May 5, 1995, and the date

for filing reply comments is extended to

June 6, 1995.

5. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4 (i), 302

and 303 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302,

303; and pursuant to Sections 0.31 and

1.46 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

0.31, 1.46. For further information

contact Sean White, Office of

Engineering and Technology, (202) 776–

1624.

Federal Communications Commission.

Bruce A. Franca,

Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and

Technology.

[FR Doc. 95–6215 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–13, Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AF28

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Glazing Materials

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking;

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to permit

the installation of a new item of motor

vehicle glazing, Item 4A—Rigid Plastic

for Use in Side Windows Rearward of

the ‘‘C’’ Pillar, in hatchbacks and station

wagons. This NPRM responds to a

petition for rulemaking from General

Motors. In issuing this proposal, the

agency seeks to provide greater

flexibility for manufacturers to develop

and use more aerodynamic, lighter

weight glazing designs, resulting in

lower fuel consumption.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments must refer to

the docket number and notice number

of this notice and be submitted,

preferably in ten copies, to: Docket

Section, Room 5109, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Docket hours are from 9:30 am

to 4 pm, Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Margaret Gill, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.

Gill’s telephone number is: (202) 366–

6651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing

Materials (49 CFR 571.205), specifies

performance requirements for the types

of glazing that may be installed in motor

vehicles. It also specifies the vehicle

locations in which the various types of

glazing may be installed. The standard

incorporates, by reference, American

National Standards Institute (ANS)

Standard Z26.1, ‘‘Safety Code for Safety

Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor

Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,’’

as amended through 1980 (Z26). The

requirements in ANS Z26.1 are

specified in terms of performance tests

that the various types or ‘‘items’’ of

glazing must pass. There are 20 ‘‘items’’

of glazing for which requirements are

currently specified in Standard No. 205.

To ensure the safety performance of

vehicle glazing, Standard No. 205

includes a total of 31 specific tests. Each

item of glazing is subjected to a selected

group of these tests. It is the particular

combination of tests that dictates the

requisite properties of a particular item

of glazing, and where in a motor vehicle

the glazing may be installed.

Rigid plastic materials, such as those

referenced in this rulemaking, are

considered to be Items 4 and 5 glazing.

Since they are more susceptible to

abrasion than glass, these materials are

currently not permitted to be installed

in those areas requisite for driving

visibility. All windows in a passenger

car are considered requisite for driving

visibility. Therefore, Items 4 and 5

glazing may not be used in those

windows. Instead, they may be used for

such things as internal partitions and

covers for openings in the car roof. More

extensive use is permitted in trucks

(e.g., pickup trucks and cargo vans)

since they do not have designated

seating positions rearward of the

driver’s position. In those vehicles,

Items 4 and 5 may be used in windows

to the rear of the driver if other means

for affording visibility are provided.

GM Petition

By letter dated December 15, 1993,

General Motors (GM) petitioned the

agency to amend Standard No. 205 to

relax the limitations on the installation

of Items 4 and 5 rigid plastic glazing so

that they can be installed in the side

windows of station wagons and

hatchbacks to the rear of all designated

seating positions. GM subsequently

amended its petition, limiting it to Item

4 glazing. (Item 4 glazing is required to

transmit at least 70 percent of the light

striking it; Item 5 glazing has no such

requirement.) GM suggested further that

Item 4 glazing be used in only those

station wagons and hatchbacks that

provide means (e.g., exterior passengerside mirrors) of affording visibility of

the highway to the side and rear of the

vehicle. The limitation of the

installation to locations rearward of any

designated seating position and to

vehicles with exterior passenger side

rearview mirrors was intended to

address agency concerns that led to the

denial of an earlier, somewhat similar

petition by the American Automobile

Manufacturers’ Association (AAMA)

(April 6, 1993; 58 FR 17787). AAMA’s

petition is discussed in detail later in

this notice.

In support of its petition, GM stated

that the potential benefits of permitting

plastic glazing in side windows would

be reduced mass and greater design

flexibility. GM asserted that the weight

of plastics used in automotive glazing is

about half that of tempered glass of the

same thickness. GM further asserted

plastics, while retaining good optical

quality, can be molded into more

complex shapes than glass. GM

concluded that the combined effect of

the more aerodynamic designs possible

with plastic glazing and the reduced

weight will lower a vehicle’s fuel

consumption.

GM acknowledged that Tests 17,

Abrasion Resistance (Plastics), and 18,

Abrasion Resistance (Safety Glass), of

ANS Z26 indicate that plastics are not

as abrasion resistant as glass. However,

GM suggested that concerns about the

abrasion resistance of plastic glazing

may not be well founded, asserting that

some evidence shows that Tests 17 and

18 ‘‘are not necessarily predictive’’ of

how glazing will perform under actual

use conditions. In support of its

assertion, GM attached a summary of a

study performed by a plastics supplier

on a 1988 GM Pontiac Fiero GT sail

panel. The sail panel extends rearward

from a position between the rearmost

side window and the rear or back

window. The panel was made of

abrasion-resistant coated Plexiglas

Resin. GM stated that in the study the

haze of a six year old sail panel was

measured and compared to the haze of

a new replacement part. GM concluded

that after six years, during which time

the Fiero was driven over 41,000 miles,

‘‘the haze increased from 0.49% to

0.87%, a difference of only 0.38%.’’