19602 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1Those vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kilograms) or

less.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Citadel

Communications, L.L.C. seeking the

allotment of UHF Channel 20– to

Kearney, NE, as the community’s

second local television service. Channel

20– can be allotted to Kearney in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements without the imposition of

a site restriction, at coordinates 40–41–

54 North Latitude and 99–05–00 West

Longitude. The proposed allotment at

Kearney is not affected by the

Commission’s temporary freeze on new

television allotments in certain

metropolitan areas.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 17, 1996, and reply

comments on or before July 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Eric L. Bernthal, Esq., Kevin

C. Boyle, Esq., Steven H. Schulman,

Esq., Latham & Watkins, 1001

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1300,

Washington, DC 20004 (Counsel to

petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

96–79, adopted March 25, 1996, and

released April 24, 1996. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–10852 Filed 5–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–10–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 85–06; Notice 11]

RIN [2127–AG35]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Hydraulic Brake Systems;

Light Vehicle Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

extend the requirements of Federal

motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS)

No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems,

to trucks, buses, and multipurpose

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds

(4,536 kilograms) or less. As a result,

manufacturers of such vehicles have the

option of complying with either FMVSS

No. 105 or FMVSS No. 135 for an

interim five year period, after which all

light vehicles would have to comply

with FMVSS No. 135. The agency

believes that such an amendment would

be consistent with the agency’s policy of

achieving international harmonization

whenever possible, consistent with the

statutory mandate to ensure motor

vehicle safety.

DATES: Comment Period: Comments on

this notice must be received by NHTSA

no later than July 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice numbers above

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket hours

are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

non-legal issues: Mr. Robert M. Clarke,

Office of Crash Avoidance, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

D.C. 20590 (202) 366–5278.

For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw,

NCC–20, Rulemaking Division, Office of

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590

(202) 366–2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 2, 1995, the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) published a final rule

establishing a new Federal motor

vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.

135, Passenger Car Brake Systems ( 60

FR 6411). This standard resulted from

the agency’s efforts to harmonize U.S.

brake standards with international brake

standards. FMVSS No. 135 applies only

to passenger cars. Between March 6,

1995 and August 31, 2000,

manufacturers of passenger cars have

the option of complying with either

FMVSS No. 105 or FMVSS No. 135.

After September 1, 2000, all passenger

cars must comply with the requirements

of FMVSS No. 135, while all other

vehicles with hydraulic brakes,

including light vehicles 1 other than

passenger cars, still must meet the

requirements of FMVSS No. 105.

NHTSA is considering whether to

extend the applicability of FMVSS No.

135 to all light vehicles. FMVSS No. 105

would continue to apply to vehicles

with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds (i.e., medium and heavy

hydraulically-braked vehicles). If this

change is adopted, FMVSS No. 135

would be retitled Light Vehicle Brake

Systems.

In comments submitted in response to

the agency’s July 3, 1991 supplemental

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on this

subject (56 FR 30528), Kelsey-Hayes

asked whether the rule would apply to

all purpose vehicles, mini-vans, and

light trucks, as well as to passenger cars.

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

apply FMVSS No. 135 only to passenger

cars, but stated it might consider

applying FMVSS No. 135 to all light

vehicles at a later date.

In its petition for reconsideration to

the final rule, General Motors (GM)

requested, among other things, that the

agency consider applying FMVSS No.

135 to all hydraulically-braked light

vehicles. GM stated that the United

Nations Economic Commission for

Europe (ECE) Regulation R13–H was

being developed with the intention of

applying it to all light vehicles. That

company further stated that ‘‘it would

be desirable to have a single brake
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19603

standard applicable to all hydraulicallybraked vehicles, as has traditionally

been the case with FMVSS No. 105.’’

GM stated its belief that FMVSS No. 135

was superior to FMVSS No. 105 and

that extending its applicability ‘‘* * *

could lead to genuinely improved brake

systems for MPV and LTV customers.’’

II. Agency Proposal

After reviewing GM’s petition,

NHTSA has decided to propose

applying FMVSS No. 135 to all light

vehicles. As a result, manufacturers of

such vehicles have the option of

complying with either FMVSS No. 105

or FMVSS No. 135 for an interim five

year period, after which all light

vehicles would have to comply with

FMVSS No. 135. The agency believes

that such an amendment would be

consistent with the agency’s policy of

achieving international harmonization

whenever possible and appropriate,

consistent with the statutory mandate to

promote motor vehicle safety. In

establishing FMVSS No. 135, NHTSA

stated that the new standard would

differ from the existing one (FMVSS No.

105) primarily in containing a revised

test procedure based on harmonized

international procedures developed

during discussions held between

NHTSA and the Meeting of Experts on

Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) of the

ECE. NHTSA stated that the new

FMVSS would ensure the same level of

safety for the aspects of performance

covered by FMVSS No. 105, while

improving safety by addressing some

additional safety issues.

At the agency’s June 28, 1995 and

September 22, 1995 quarterly public

meetings addressing NHTSA’s

regulatory activities, agency personnel

requested comments about whether the

agency should apply FMVSS No. 135 to

all light vehicles. The agency has

received no comments, either in favor or

in opposition to such an action. The

agency further notes that in 1995,

domestic light truck manufacturers were

voluntarily equipping 56 percent of

their annual production with 4-wheel

antilock brake systems (ABS). The

agency notes that a light vehicle

equipped with ABS would more easily

comply with FMVSS No. 135,

particularly the adhesion utilization

requirements. Market trends and

manufacturers’ public pronouncements

indicate that a significant majority of

light vehicles will be equipped with

four-wheel ABS in the near future.

Based on these considerations, NHTSA

believes that vehicle manufacturers are

already planning to voluntarily design

and equip their products with brake

systems that would comply with

FMVSS No. 135’s requirements,

including those dealing with adhesion

utilization and variable proportioning

functional failures.

Accordingly, the agency proposes to

amend Section S3. Application, to apply

FMVSS No. 135 to trucks, buses, and

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a

GVWR of 10,000 pounds (4,536

kilograms) or less. The agency notes that

FMVSS No. 105 has some requirements

that differ depending on the vehicle’s

GVWR. Nevertheless, the agency is

aware of no reasons why the

requirements of FMVSS No. 135 which

relate to equipment, dynamic road test

procedures and required stopping

performance, system failures, and

parking brake test procedures and

performance should be different for

these vehicles than they are for

passenger cars. Nevertheless, the agency

specifically invites comments, along

with supporting data, that might alter

that tentative conclusion.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice has not been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA

has considered the impacts of this

rulemaking action and determined that

it is not ‘‘significant’’ within the

meaning of the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The agency believes that

FMVSS No. 135 would ensure an

equivalent level of safety for those

aspects of performance covered by

FMVSS No. 105 and that it would also

address additional areas of brake

performance which offer added safety

benefits. The agency believes that

manufacturers are already planning,

prior to the date on which compliance

with this standard would become

mandatory, to voluntarily equip their

light vehicles with brake systems that

would meet the requirements of FMVSS

No. 135. Thus, the application of this

standard to those vehicles would not

impose costs on manufacturers beyond

those they otherwise voluntarily plan to

incur. Applying this rule to all light

vehicles would offer the possibility of

reducing the production costs for these

vehicles. Further, the agency believes

that manufacturers’ compliance

verification costs, attributable to the full

test procedure in the new standard,

would be approximately the same as

those attributable to the existing

procedure under FMVSS No. 105. Based

on the above considerations, NHTSA

believes that the impacts are so minimal

as not to warrant preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

effects of both this proposal under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that it would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a preliminary regulatory

flexibility analysis.

NHTSA concluded that the February

1995 final rule had no significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. That conclusion is equally

valid for this proposal to extend the

application of this rule to include all

light vehicles. Accordingly, the cost

savings would be so small that they

would not likely affect vehicle sales.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The

agency has determined that

implementation of this action would not

have any significant impact on the

quality of the human environment. No

changes in existing production or

disposal processes result.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this action

under the principles and criteria in

Executive Order 12612. The agency

believes that this rulemaking action

would not have sufficient Federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. No State

laws would be affected.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This rulemaking would 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

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the State requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

rulemakings establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.
19604 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

agency proposes to amend Title 49 of

the Code of Federal Regulations at Part

571 as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50

2. Section 571.105 would be amended

by revising S3, to read as follows:

§ 571.105 Standard No. 105; Hydraulic

Brake Systems.

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard

applies to hydraulically-braked vehicles

with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds. This standard applies to

hydraulically-braked passenger cars

manufactured before September 1, 2000,

and to hydraulically-braked

multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of

10,000 pounds or less that are

manufactured before September 1, 2002.

At the option of the manufacturer,

hydraulically-braked passenger cars

manufactured before September 1, 2000,

and hydraulically-braked multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less

manufactured before September 1, 2002,

may meet the requirements of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135,

Light Vehicle Brake Systems instead of

this standard.

* * * * *

3. Section 571.135 would amended by

revising the heading and section S3. to

read as follows:

§ 571.135 Standard No. 135; Light Vehicle

Brake Systems

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard

applies to hydraulically-braked

passenger cars manufactured on and

after September 1, 2000, and to

hydraulically-braked multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (4,536

kilograms) or less, manufactured on and

after September 1, 2002. In addition, at

the option of the manufacturer,

passenger cars manufactured before

September 1, 2000, and multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

(4,536 kilograms), manufactured before

September 1, 2002, may meet the

requirements of this standard instead of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

* * * * *

Issued on: April 25, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–10793 Filed 5–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 652

[I.D. 041996D]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearing; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold a public hearing to allow for input

on Amendment 9 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Atlantic Surf

Clam and Ocean Quahog Fishery (FMP).

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until May 10, 1996. The

hearing will be held on Tuesday, May

14, 1996, at 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to David R.

Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, Room

2115, Federal Building, 300 South New

Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. The

public hearing will be held at the

Doubletree Inn, 4101 Island Avenue,

Philadelphia, PA (1–800–222–TREE).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Keifer, (302) 674–2331; fax

(302) 674–5399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Council proposes to revise the

overfishing definitions for surf clams

and ocean quahogs under Amendment

9. The amendment is intended to bring

the FMP into compliance with the

guidelines in 50 CFR 602 that mandate

a quantifiable definition of overfishing

in all FMPs. Overfishing is currently

defined as the catch of surf clams or

ocean quahogs exceeding the annual

quota for each species. The provisions

of the FMP contain annual quotas,

vessel allocations, and other provisions

for cage identification, minimum size

limits, closed areas, and reporting.

Overfishing of surf clams and ocean

quahogs has not occurred, given the

existing stock conditions during the past

two decades of management. However,

NMFS has concluded that a stronger

biological basis is needed for the

overfishing definitions for these species,

in part due to the lack of strong

recruitment in recent years.

The preferred alternative overfishing

definition for surf clams is a fishing

mortality rate of F20% (20 percent of the

maximum spawning potential (MSP),

which equates to an annual exploitation

rate of 15.3 percent. The preferred

alternative overfishing definition for

ocean quahogs is a fishing mortality rate

of F25% (25 percent of the MSP), which

equates to an annual exploitation rate of

4.3 percent.

Alternative overfishing definitions for

surf clams are:

1. A fishing mortality rate of Fmax,

which corresponds to an annual

exploitation rate of 16.5 percent.

2. The Council’s current optimum

yield (OY) for surf clam ranges from

1,850,000 to 3,400,000 bushels. The

Council policy is to set the quota within

an OY range that will allow fishing to

continue at that level for at least 10

years. Within the above constraint, the

quota is set at a level that will meet

estimated annual demand.

Alternative overfishing definitions for

ocean quahogs are:

1. A fishing mortality rate of F20%,

which corresponds to an annual

exploitation rate of 5.8 percent.

2. A fishing mortality rate of F30%,

which corresponds to an annual

exploitation rate of 3.5 percent.

3. A fishing mortality rate of Fmax,

which corresponds to an annual

exploitation rate of 6.8 percent.

4. The Council’s current OY for ocean

quahog ranges from 4,000,000 to

6,000,000 bushels. The Council policy is

to set the quota within an OY range that

will allow fishing to continue at that

level for at least 30 years. Within the

above constraint, the quota is set at a

level that will meet estimated annual

demand.

This hearing is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

David R. Keifer (see ADDRESSES) at least

5 days prior to the meeting date.

The hearing will be tape recorded

with the tapes filed as the official

transcript of the hearing.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.