Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30847

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Mohamed Serageldin, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–2379.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. The regulated

category and entities affected by this

action include:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Industry ........... Facilities that build, repair,

repaint, convert, or alter

ships. The term ship

means any marine or

fresh-water vessel, including self-propelled vessels,

those propelled by other

craft (barges), and navigational aids (buoys).

Note: An offshore oil and

gas drilling platform is not

considered a ship for purposes of this regulation.

Federal Govt ... Federal Agencies which undertake shipbuilding or repair operations (see

above) such as the Navy

and Coast guards.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.782 of the

regulation. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

If no significant and timely adverse

comments are received, no further

activity is contemplated in relation to

this proposed rule, and the direct final

rule in the final rules section of this

Federal Register will automatically go

into effect on the date specified in that

rule. If significant and timely adverse

comments are received, the direct final

rule will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be considered

prior to promulgation of the final rule.

Because the EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this

proposed rule, any parties interested in

commenting should do so during this

comment period.

For further supplemental information,

the detailed rationale, and the rule

provisions, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register.

Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated NESHAP were submitted

to and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). A copy

of this Information Collection Request

(ICR) document (OMB control number

1414.02) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, Information Policy Branch

(PM–223Y); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

Today’s changes to the NESHAP

should have no impact on the

information collection burden estimates

made previously. The changes to the

implementation plan submittal date and

the compliance date do not impose new

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has

not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866, the

EPA must determine whether the

proposed regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore, subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the executive order. The Order defines

‘‘significant’’ regulatory action as one

that is likely to lead to a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety in

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

The Shipbuilding NESHAP

promulgated on December 15, 1995 was

not considered ‘‘significant’’ under

Executive Order 12866 and a regulatory

impact analysis (RIA) was not prepared.

Today’s proposed revisions do not add

any additional control or recordkeeping

requirements. Therefore, this action is

not considered to affect the decision

whether this rule is significant.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the identification of potentially

adverse impacts of Federal regulations

upon small business entities. The Act

specifically requires the completion of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those

instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this rulemaking

imposes no adverse economic impacts,

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not

been prepared.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, the EPA must select

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act do not apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15440 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36 and 69

[CC Docket 96–45; DA–96–936]

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.
30848 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: The purpose of the notice is

to inform the general public of a

meeting that will be held by the FederalState Joint Board on universal service.

DATES: The Federal-State Joint Board in

CC Docket 96–45 will hold an Open

Meeting on Wednesday, June 19, 1996 at

9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: in Room 856 at 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Flannery, Accounting and Audits

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at

(202) 418–0844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the

meeting, the Federal-State Joint Board

will hear from two panels of experts

addressing universal service issues set

forth in Section 254 of the

Telecommunications Act. In addition,

the Federal-State Joint Board will

consider whether to extend the two-year

indexed cap on the rate at which the

Universal Service Fund may grow.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15339 Filed 6–12–96; 4:23 pm]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 581

[Docket No. 96–65; Notice 1]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Bumper Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document announces

public meetings to be held in Palm

Desert, California, and Washington, DC,

at which NHTSA will seek information

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. This document also

invites written comments on these

subjects.

DATES: The public meeting in Palm

Desert, California, will be held on

Thursday, July 18, 1996, at 1:00 p.m.

The public meeting in Washington, DC,

will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday,

July 25, 1996. An agenda for each

meeting will be made based on the

number of persons wishing to make oral

presentations and will be available on

the day of the meeting. Those wishing

to make oral presentations at each

meeting should contact Z. Taylor

Vinson, at the address or telephone

number listed below, by the close of

business July 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public Meetings: The first

public meeting will be held at the City

of Palm Desert Council Chambers,

73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,

California. The second public meeting

will be held at DOT headquarters, Nassif

Building, Room 6200, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. Written

Comments: Written comments may be

submitted at any time before or after the

meetings, but not later than August 8,

1996. They should be sent to the Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400

7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

ATTN: Docket No. 96–65; Notice 1.

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

As discussed below in more detail,

vehicles such as golf carts have not been

regulated by NHTSA because they were

not being used on the public roads.

Even where a vehicle is being used on

the roads, NHTSA has not regulated it

if it was configured differently from

passenger cars or light trucks, and if it

had a top speed of 20 mph or less.

However, the agency has become aware

that the use and design of some of these

vehicles are evolving in previously

unanticipated ways. Although golf carts

have traditionally been limited in their

operations to golf courses, a number of

states have taken legislative actions that

permit the use of golf carts on the public

roads at speeds up to 25 mph. In

addition, there appears to be a growing

interest worldwide in small vehicles of

somewhat unusual configurations that

are capable of exceeding 20 mph, and

that are intended for on-road use as city

or commuter cars. While some new golf

cart-like vehicles do not really resemble

very small passenger cars, neither do

they resemble the traditional golf cart.

The agency therefore deems it timely

to review its historical position in light

of this evolving situation. To aid it in its

review, NHTSA has decided to hold two

public meetings to receive the

comments of local elected and law

enforcement officials, manufacturers,

individual citizens who use these

vehicles, public interest groups, and

other interested persons on safety and

regulatory issues affecting golf carts and

other light-weight limited-speed

vehicles.

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. A

‘‘motor vehicle’’ is a vehicle

‘‘manufactured primarily for use on the

public streets, roads, and highways’’

(Sec. 30102(a)(6)). The agency’s

interpretations of this term have

centered around the meaning of the

word ‘‘primarily.’’ The agency has

generally interpreted the term 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

Sec. 30102(a)(6) dates from 1969, and

addressed the status of mini-bikes.

NHTSA said that the capability of a

vehicle to be operated on the public

roads would be an important criterion

in determining whether it was a ‘‘motor

vehicle’’, but that test would not be

reached if there is clear evidence as a

practical matter that the vehicle was not

being used on the public roads. In

NHTSA’s view, ‘‘in the case of selfpropelled riding mowers, golf carts, and

many other similar self-propelled

vehicles, such clear evidence exists.’’

Thus, the agency declined to regulate

golf carts.

Without such clear evidence, NHTSA

said that it would initially defer to the

manufacturer’s judgment that a vehicle

was not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’ unless ‘‘a

substantial portion of the consuming

public’’ was operating the vehicle on the

public roads. In borderline cases,

NHTSA set forth criteria it would

employ in determining whether a

particular vehicle is a ‘‘motor vehicle.’’

Noting the comparative rarity of minibike use on public streets, and that the

registration of mini-bikes for use on

public streets was precluded by laws of

most jurisdictions unless they were

equipped with Standard No. 108-type

lighting devices, NHTSA said it would

not consider mini-bikes to be ‘‘motor

vehicles’’ if their manufacturers:

(1) Do not equip them with devices

and accessories that render them lawful

for use and registration for use on public

highways under state and local laws;

(2) Do not otherwise participate or

assist in making the vehicles lawful for

operation on public roads (as by