Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1075

individual who has need for a special

accommodation to attend a public

hearing should contact the individual

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. The location and time of the

hearing will be arranged with those

persons requesting the hearing. If no one

requests an opportunity to testify at the

public hearing, the hearing will not be

held. Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to testify have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to testify, and who wish

to do so, will be heard following those

who have been scheduled. The hearing

will end after all persons scheduled to

testify and persons present in the

audience who wish to testify have been

heard.

3. Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to testify at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

administrative record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

6. Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or private

sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 902

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 23, 1996.

James F. Fulton,

Acting Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–302 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 21

RIN 2900–AH97

Veterans Education: Submission of

School Catalogs to State Approving

Agencies

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the educational assistance and

educational benefits regulations of the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The current regulations provide that

schools must submit a catalog or

bulletin to the State Approving Agency

(SAA) when seeking approval for

courses for training under VAadministered education programs.

Public Law 102–568 removed this

requirement for elementary and

secondary schools. Accordingly, VA

intends to amend the regulations to state

that accredited schools, other than

elementary and secondary schools, as

part of the approval process must

submit catalogs to the State agencies

that approve courses for training under

VA-administered education programs.

The purpose of this document is to

request Paperwork Reduction Act

comments concerning requirements that

accredited schools, other than

elementary and secondary schools,

submit a catalog or bulletin to SAAs.

DATES: Comments on this collection of

information should be submitted must

be received on or before March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written

comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AH97’’. All

written comments will be available for

public inspection in the Office of

Regulations Management, Room 1158,

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June

C. Schaeffer, Assistant Director for

Policy and Program Administration,

Education Service (225), Veterans

Benefits Administration, Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202–273–

7187.
1076 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has determined that the

proposed 38 CFR 21.4253(d)(1) would

constitute a collection of information

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of

the Act VA has submitted a copy of this

rulemaking action to OMB for its review

of the collection of information.

OMB assigns a control number for

each collection of information it

approves. VA may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number.

Comments on the proposed collection

of information should be submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget,

Attention: Desk Officer for the

Department of Veterans Affairs, Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Washington, DC 20503, with copies

mailed or hand-delivered to: Director,

Office of Regulations Management

(02D), Department of Veterans Affairs,

810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AH97’’.

Title: Submission of School Catalog to

State Approving Agency (SAA).

Summary of collection of information:

The provisions of the proposed 38 CFR

21.4253(d)(1) would restate a statutory

requirement (under 38 U.S.C. 3675(a))

which provides that before an SAA may

approve a course of an accredited

educational institution (other than an

elementary or secondary school) for

training under VA-administered

educational assistance programs (VA

training), the educational institution

must submit to the SAA certified copies

of its catalog or bulletin containing the

school’s graduation requirements;

institution policy and regulations

containing certain information relative

to standards of progress required of the

student; institution policy and

regulations relating to student conduct

and conditions for dismissal; and any

attendance standards, if enforced.

Description of need for information

and proposed use of information: VA

contracts with agencies of the various

State governments (SAAs) to approve

courses for VA training. The catalogs or

bulletins referred to in this rulemaking

are required by 38 U.S.C. 3675(a) to be

submitted to the SAAs, not to VA.

Hence, VA is not the primary user of the

information, except in those rare

instances where, under 38 U.S.C. 3671,

VA is acting as an SAA. The SAAs use

the information contained in the

catalogs to help determine whether the

educational institution’s courses may be

approved for VA training.

Description of likely respondents:

Accredited educational institutions

(other than elementary and secondary

schools) applying to SAAs for approval

of the institutions’ courses for VA

training.

Estimated number of respondents:

5,990.

Estimated frequency of responses:

Annually. Generally, the SAAs collect

this information when an educational

institution applies for approval of a new

course of study. Essentially, educational

institutions develop new courses of

study for which they seek approval with

enough frequency so that the SAAs

collect each new catalog the educational

institutions may issue. This generally

means a collection annually or less

frequently, depending on the nature of

the educational institution applying for

course approval.

Estimated total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden: 1,497.5 hours.

VA estimates that there would be no

additional recordkeeping burden

imposed. Educational institutions

would develop catalogs or bulletins and

would develop written policies and

requirements concerning the matters

required to be included in the catalogs

and bulletins even if the statutory

requirements restated in the proposed

rule did not exist.

Estimated annual burden per

collection: 1⁄4 hour.

The Department considers comments

by the public on proposed collections of

information in—

• Evaluating whether the proposed

collections of information are necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Department, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of the

Department’s estimate of the burden of

the proposed collections of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the

collections of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in this proposed rule between

30 and 60 days after publication of this

document in the Federal Register.

Therefore, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it within 30 days of

publication. This does not affect the

deadline for the public to comment on

the proposed regulations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

certifies that the adoption of this

proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

Although it is possible that a small

entity could be subject to this

rulemaking, all schools prepare a

catalog or bulletin that would meet the

requirements of this rulemaking.

Consequently, there would be no

significant economic impact on small

entities from this rulemaking.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance numbers for the programs

affected by this proposed rule are

64.117, 64.120, and 64.124.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21

Administrative practice and

procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights,

Claims, Colleges and universities,

Conflict of interests, Defense

Department, Education, Employment,

Grant programs—education, Grant

programs—veterans, Health care, Loan

programs—education, Loan programsveterans, Manpower training programs,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Schools, Travel and

transportation expenses, Veterans,

Vocational education, Vocational

rehabilitation.

Approved: October 24, 1996.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 21, subpart D is

amended as set forth below.

PART 21—VOCATIONAL

REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION

Subpart D—Administration of

Educational Assistance Programs

1. The authority citation for part 21,

subpart D continues to read as follows:

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1606; 38 U.S.C.

501(a), chs. 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, unless

otherwise noted.

2. In § 21.4253, paragraph (d)(1) is

revised to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1077

§ 21.4253 Accredited courses.

* * * * *

(d) School qualification. * * *

(1) The institution (other than an

elementary or secondary school) has

submitted to the State approving agency

copies of its catalog or bulletin which

are certified as true and correct in

content and policy by an authorized

representative, and the publication

shall:

(i) State with specificity the

requirements of the institution with

respect to graduation;

(ii) Include institution policy and

regulations relative to standards of

progress required of the student by the

institution (this policy will define the

grading system of the institution, the

minimum grades considered

satisfactory, conditions for interruption

for unsatisfactory grades or progress, a

description of the probationary period,

if any, allowed by the institution,

conditions of reentrance for those

students dismissed for unsatisfactory

progress, and a statement regarding

progress records kept by the institution

and furnished the student);

(iii) Include institution policy and

regulations relating to student conduct

and conditions for dismissal for

unsatisfactory conduct; and

(iv) Include any attendance standards

of the institution if the institution has

and enforces such standards.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3675(a), 3676(b))

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–355 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–65; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AG58

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document initiates

rulemaking based upon oral

presentations at the agency’s public

meetings and written comments

received on the appropriate

classification and safety regulations for

golf carts and other small, light-weight

vehicles that are capable of being driven

on the public roads. In response to these

comments, NHTSA proposes that a new

category of motor vehicle be established,

called ‘‘low-speed vehicle.’’ A lowspeed vehicle (LSV) would be any motor

vehicle, other than a motorcycle, whose

top speed does not exceed 25 mph.

Under a proposed new standard,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 100, LSVs would be equipped with

certain basic items of motor vehicle

safety equipment, such as seat belts, in

lieu of complying with the Federal

motor vehicle safety and bumper

standards that would apply if the

vehicles were categorized according to

existing vehicle types. LSVs would also

have a label warning against driving

them at speeds that exceed 25 mph. A

‘‘golf cart’’, a vehicle that is used to

carry golfers on golf courses and that

has a top speed of 15 mph or less,

would not be considered a motor

vehicle, consistent with the agency’s

past interpretations. A ‘‘golf car’’, a

vehicle that is used to carry golfers on

golf courses and that has a top speed

that exceeds 15 mph, but does not

exceed 25 mph, would be a motor

vehicle and required to comply with

Standard No. 100. This rulemaking

action is intended to supersede the

agency’s past interpretations excluding

from regulation motor vehicles with a

distinctive configuration and a top

speed of not more than 20 mph, and to

bring all such vehicles under the

statutory requirements to notify and

remedy safety related defects, and when

effective, noncompliances with

Standard No. 100.

DATES: Comments are due February 24,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. 96–65; Notice 2, and be

submitted to Docket Section, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 5109, 400 7th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z.

Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel,

NHTSA, Room 5219, 400 7th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone

202–366–5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In order to afford the reader a full

understanding of the agency’s tentative

decision, this notice will repeat, rather

than refer the reader to, much of the

discussion that appeared in Notice 1,

published at 61 FR 30848 on June 18,

1996.

As discussed below in greater detail,

vehicles such as golf carts have not been

regulated by NHTSA because they were

not considered to be manufactured for

use on the public roads. Even when a

vehicle is being used on the roads,

NHTSA has not regulated if it had an

unusual configuration, and if it had a

top speed of 20 mph or less. However,

the agency has become aware that the

design and use of some of these vehicles

are evolving in previously unanticipated

ways. Although golf carts have

traditionally been limited in their

operations to golf courses, some states

have taken legislative actions that

permit the use of golf carts on some

public roads at speeds up to 25 mph. In

addition, there appears to be a growing

interest worldwide in small vehicles of

unconventional configurations that are

capable of exceeding 20 mph, and that

are intended for on-road use as city or

commuter cars. While some of these

vehicles do not resemble very small

passenger cars, neither do they resemble

the traditional golf cart.

The agency decided to review its

historical position in light of these

changing circumstances. To aid it in its

review, NHTSA established Docket No.

96–65 and held two public meetings to

receive the comments of manufacturers

and users of these vehicles, local elected

and law enforcement officials, public

interest groups, and other interested

persons, on safety and regulatory issues

affecting golf carts and other lightweight limited-speed vehicles. The first

meeting was held in Palm Desert,

California, on July 18, 1996. The second

meeting took place on July 25, 1996, at

NHTSA headquarters in Washington,

D.C. Written comments were requested

to be submitted by August 8, 1996.

II. Legal Considerations

A. Federal Law

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants

NHTSA regulatory authority over

‘‘motor vehicles.’’ All ‘‘motor vehicles’’

are subject to the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards promulgated by

NHTSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111,

and to the notification and remedy

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121.

Those provisions must be followed in

the event a motor vehicle is determined

to fail to comply with a safety standard,

or incorporates a safety related defect. A

‘‘motor vehicle’’ is defined as a vehicle

‘‘manufactured primarily for use on the

public streets, roads, and highways’’

(Sec. 30102(a)(6)). The agency’s

interpretations of the definition have

centered on the meaning of the word

‘‘primarily.’’ The agency has generally

interpreted ‘‘primarily’’ to mean that a

significant portion of a vehicle’s use

must be on the public roads in order for

the vehicle to be considered to be a

motor vehicle.

NHTSA’s principal interpretation of

the definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ dates