Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 9787

1The responsibility for licensing the 220 MHz

radio service now resides in the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau.

2 (59 FR 15857, April 5, 1994). The December 2,

1994 deadline was announced in a Private Radio

Bureau Order released on March 30, 1994 (see 9

FCC Rcd 1739 (1994)). In that Order, the Bureau,

citing the court appeal challenging the

Commission’s 220 MHz licensing procedures (see

Evans v. Federal Communications Commission,

Order, per curiam, Case No. 92–1317 (D.C. Cir.

March 18, 1994)) decided that, upon termination of

the appeal, all non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees

would be afforded the full 8 months provided under

our rules (see 47 C.F.R. § 90.725(f)) to construct and

operate their stations. The December 2, 1994

deadline reflected the approximate 8-month period

following the March 30, 1994 release of the Order.

3See 9 FCC Rcd 8077 (1994).

standards of conduct regulations that

have been superseded by the branchwide Standards of Ethical Conduct

issued by the Office of Government

Ethics (‘‘OGE’’) and by the executive

branch financial disclosure regulations.

In place of its regulations, the FMC is

substituting cross-references to the new

branch-wide regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Miles, Designated Agency

Ethics Official, Federal Maritime

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., Washington, D.C. 20573, (202)

523–5740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 6, 1984, the Federal Maritime

Commission adopted administrative

regulations governing employee

responsibilities and conduct; statements

of employment and financial interests;

and executive personnel financial

disclosure reports. See 46 CFR part 500,

subpart A, B, C, and D. On August 7,

1992, the Office of Government Ethics

published Standards of Ethical Conduct

for Employees of the Executive Branch

(‘‘Standards’’) for codification at 5 CFR

part 2635. See 57 FR 35006–35007, as

corrected at 57 FR 48557 (October 27,

1992) and 57 FR 52583 (November 4,

1992). The Standards, effective February

3, 1993, contain uniform ethical

conduct standards applicable to all

executive branch personnel, and

supersede all existing agency standards

of conduct.

Accordingly, the Commission is

repealing its existing standards of

conduct regulations at 46 CFR Part 500,

Subparts A, B, and C, which were

superseded by the executive branchwide Standards on February 3, 1993. In

addition, Subpart D of Part 500, dealing

with financial disclosure, was also

superseded on October 5, 1992, by

OGE’s executive branch-wide financial

disclosure regulation, codified at 5 CFR

Part 2634. See 57 FR 11800–11830

(April 7, 1992), as amended at 57 FR

21854–21855 (May 22, 1992) and 57 FR

62605 (December 31, 1992). In place of

its old standards at 46 CFR part 500, the

Commission is issuing a residual crossreference provision, at new 46 CFR

500.101, to refer to both the branchwide Standards and financial disclosure

regulations. The Commission has

determined not to supplement the

standards with its own agency-specific

standards.

The Commission finds that good

cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and

(d)(3) for waiving, as unnecessary and

contrary to the public interest, the

general notice of proposed rulemaking

and the 30-day delay in effectiveness as

to this rule and repeals. This rulemaking

is related to the Commission’s

organization, procedure and practice.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the

Commission certifies that this final rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, including small businesses,

small organizational units and small

governmental jurisdictions, because it

affects only Commission employees.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 500

Conflict of interests, Government

employees.

For the reasons set forth above, the

Federal Maritime Commission, in

concurrence with the Office of

Government Ethics, is amending title

46, Subchapter A of the Code of Federal

Regulations, by revising Part 500 to read

as follows:

PART 500—EMPLOYEE ETHICAL

CONDUCT STANDARDS AND

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

REGULATIONS

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 5 U.S.C. 7301; 46

U.S.C. app. 1716.

§ 500.101 Cross-reference to employee

ethical conduct standards and financial

disclosure regulations.

Employees of the Federal Maritime

Commission (‘‘FMC’’) should refer to

the executive branch-wide Standards of

Ethical Conduct at 5 CFR part 2635, and

the executive branch-wide financial

disclosure regulation at 5 CFR part

2634.

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4238 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[PR Docket No. 89–552; DA 95–251]

Use of the 220–222 MHz Band by the

Private Land Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Interpretation; Extension of

compliance date.

SUMMARY: Non-nationwide 220–222

MHz licensees are currently required to

construct their stations and place them

in operation by April 4, 1995. Recently,

however, the Commission has received

requests from manufacturers of 220–222

MHz radio equipment to extend this

deadline. The manufacturers indicate

that an extension is necessary because

they will not be able to deliver radio

equipment to many licensees in time to

enable them to construct their stations

by April 4, 1995. The Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau agrees that

some measure of relief should be

afforded to non-nationwide 220–222

MHz licensees and has therefore

adopted this Order extending the

deadline to December 31, 1995 for all

non-nationwide 220–222 MHz licensees

to construct their stations and place

them in operation.

DATES: Compliance date extended to

December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin D. Liebman, Policy Division,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,

(202) 418–0620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order

Adopted: February 16, 1995

Released: February 17, 1995

By the Chief, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau:

1. On August 19, 1994. the Private

Radio Bureau released a Public Notice

(DA 94–902) 1 extending the deadline

for construction of non-nationwide 220

MHz stations from December 2, 1994 to

April 4, 1995.2 The Commission, in the

Third Report and Order, GN Docket No.

93–252, Implementation of Sections 3(n)

and 332 of the Communications Act,

released September 23, 1994, 9 FCC Rcd

7988 (1994) 59 FR 59945, November 21,

1994, again identified April 4, 1995 as

the construction deadline for nonnationwide 220 MHz stations. In that

decision, the Commission noted that the

extension ‘‘gives these licensees

approximately 12 months from the date

of * * * [the March 30, 1994 Order]

* * * to complete construction and

commence operations. * * *’’ 3

2. Recently, the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau received
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