        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566: FRL-9973-21—Region 10]
        Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone Requirement

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the portions of Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to agricultural crop residue burning. The Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted the revisions to EPA on September 22, 2017. IDEQ supplemented the original submission with photochemical modeling analyses on October 23, 2017. The revisions change the ambient ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may approve a permittee's request to burn. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 21, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1999, email address: ruddick.randall@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
        Table of Contents:

          I. Background
          A. Idaho's Crop Residue Burning Program
          B. Idaho's Proposed SIP Revision
          C. 2015 Ozone NAAQS Background
          II. EPA's Review of Idaho's Submittal
          A. Summary of Idaho's Demonstration
          B. Clean Air Act § 110(l) Requirements
          III. EPA's Proposed Action
          IV. Incorporation by Reference
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background
        A. Idaho's Crop Residue Burning Program

        Idaho's regulations at Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01.617 through 624 contain the federally-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions regulating open burning of crop residue in Idaho. These rules were approved by EPA on August 1, 2008, (73 FR 44915) and were submitted to EPA in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Safe Air for Everyone v. USEPA, 475 F.3d 1096, amended 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007). More information regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and the federally-approved requirements for crop residue burning can be found in EPA's proposed and final actions on the state's 2008 SIP submittal. 73 FR 23155 (April 29, 2008) and 73 FR 44915 (August 1, 2008).
        In 2013, EPA approved revisions related to Idaho's open burning and crop residue burning requirements that established a streamlined permitting process for spot burns, baled agricultural residue burns, and propane flaming. The revisions also made minor changes to the existing crop residue burning rules to update cross references and clarify certain administrative information. More information regarding the revisions EPA approved in 2013 can be found in EPA's proposed and final actions on the state's 2011 SIP submittal. 78 FR 2359 (January 11, 2013) and 78 FR 16790 (March 19, 2013).
        Idaho's federally-approved crop residue burning rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 currently provide that the open burning of crop residue on fields where the crops were grown is an allowable form of open burning if conducted in accordance with the provisions at IDAPA 58.01.01.618 through 624. In brief, these rules require that a person desiring to burn crop residue must register at least thirty days in advance of the date of the proposed burn, pay a fee at least seven days prior to the burn, contact the IDEQ for initial approval at least 12 hours prior to the burn, obtain final approval from the IDEQ the morning of the burn, and submit a post-burn report to the IDEQ. In addition, all persons intending to dispose of crop residue through burning must abide by all of the general provisions in IDAPA 58.01.01.622 which covers such items as training requirements, reporting requirements, and certain limitations on burning.
        The criteria according to which IDEQ may approve a request to burn crop residue are delineated in IDAPA 58.01.01.621. Importantly, the federally approved version currently in Idaho's SIP requires that IDEQ, before approving a permittee's request to burn, determine that ambient air quality levels do not exceed seventy-five percent of any NAAQS concentration level on the day when the burning will occur and are not projected to exceed such level over the next 24 hours. In addition, IDEQ must determine that ambient air quality levels have not reached, and are not forecasted to reach and persist at, eighty percent of the one-hour action criteria for particulate matter under IDAPA 58.01.01.556.1
           Thus, IDEQ will not approve a burn if these levels are expected to be exceeded as a result of the burn. In determining whether to approve the burn, IDEQ must also consider the expected emissions from the proposed burn, the proximity of the proposed burn to other burns, the moisture content of the fuels, the acreage, crop type and other fuel characteristics, existing and expected meteorological conditions, the proximity of the proposed burn to institutions with sensitive populations, public roadways, and airports, and other relevant factors. See IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01. IDEQ must also notify the public as to whether a given day is a burn or no-burn day; the location and number of acres permitted to be burned; meteorological conditions and any real time ambient air quality monitoring data, and a toll-free number to receive request for information. IDAPA 58.01.01.623.

            1 The current one-hour action criteria under IDAPA 58.01.01.556 is an average of 80 µg/m3 for PM2.5 and an average of 385 ug/m3 for PM10.

        B. Idaho's Proposed SIP Revision
        On September 22, 2017, Idaho submitted a SIP revision request to EPA. This SIP submittal contains one change to the federally-approved crop residue burning rules. Specifically, the September 22, 2017, SIP submittal revises the ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may authorize (authorization level) agricultural crop residue burning (CRB) at IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 and Idaho Code 39-114 (codification of Idaho Senate Bill 1009, Section 3) from seventy-five to ninety percent of the Ozone NAAQS. This revision does not change the authorization levels for any other NAAQS and all other CRB requirements remain unchanged.
        IDEQ submitted this revision after concluding that an authorization level of seventy-five percent of the Ozone NAAQS was problematic because it prohibited IDEQ from allowing burning on what would otherwise be a desirable day to burn from a smoke management perspective—when smoke would rise well into the transport layer and disperse well. IDEQ asserts burning on days when smoke dispersion is better will further limit negative impacts on public health.
        In the September 22, 2017, submittal, the IDEQ described the process for making the rule changes and noted that the changes were drafted in conjunction with negotiated rulemaking involving persons having an interest in the development of this rule. IDEQ's negotiated rulemaking process 2
           did not result in a consensus regarding the SIP revisions Idaho submitted on September 22, 2017.

            2 Idaho's negotiated rulemaking process is described in Section 67-5220, Idaho Code and IDAPA 04.11.01.810 through 819.

        C. 2015 Ozone NAAQS Background
        On October 1, 2015, EPA signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the 8-hour primary and secondary Ozone NAAQS (80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015). While both standards retain the same general form and averaging time (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years 3
          ), they were lowered from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a level of 0.070 ppm.4
           The revised 2015 Ozone NAAQS provides greater protection of public health and the environment than the previous 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

            3 See 80 FR 65296; October 26, 2015, for a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year 8-hour average and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix U.

            4 These levels are commonly referred to in parts per billion (ppb): 75 ppb and 70 ppb, respectively.

        Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by section 107(d)(1) of the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS. Nonattainment areas include both areas that are violating the NAAQS, and nearby areas with emissions sources or activities that contribute to violations in those areas. States with areas designated nonattainment are required to prepare and submit a plan for attaining the NAAQS in the area as expeditiously as practicable.
        On November 6, 2017, EPA issued final designations for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS for most areas in the United States. Specifically, we found that Idaho meets the standard statewide and issued a final designation of “attainment/unclassifiable” for Idaho statewide. This final designation became effective January 16, 2018.
        II. EPA's Review of Idaho's Submittal
        A. Summary of Idaho's Demonstration

        Idaho submitted a “Weight of Evidence” demonstration containing multiple analyses of ozone monitoring data; they also submitted photochemical modeling to demonstrate that the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. (See Docket EPA-R10_OAR-2017-0566: 002_state submittals_Weight of Evidence SIP narrative CRBO3 crop residue burning ozone.pdf and 004_state submittals_2017ACQ100 final CRB Ozone Modeling SIP amendment Report EPA submittal.pdf respectively.) Idaho's demonstration uses several different approaches to evaluate existing ozone monitoring data from 2011 through 2015 to attempt to quantify the impacts of crop residue burning during that period upon ambient ozone concentrations. Through this methodology, it attempts to demonstrate that the range of ambient impacts from historic crop residue burning have not exceeded levels that would be expected to cause a violation of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. Idaho's demonstration further provides that the universe of sources participating in the crop residue burning program is stable and that ozone precursor emissions under the proposed revised SIP will not increase even though there is no provision in the SIP which explicitly limits the scope of CRB either in terms of a limit on acres burned or emissions generated by the practice. Finally, Idaho supplemented its “Weight of Evidence” demonstration with a photochemical modeling demonstration that evaluated whether increasing the SIP's CRB authorization level to ninety percent of the Ozone NAAQS concentration would result in a violation of the NAAQS and concluded that Idaho would continue to attain the Ozone NAAQS at this higher authorization level. EPA's analysis of Idaho's demonstration is included in our Technical Support Document (Docket R10-OAR-2017-0566, 101_Technical Support Document_ID 2017 CRB Ozone Revision.pdf) and elsewhere in this Notice.
        B. Clean Air Act § 110(l) Requirements
        Approvals to revisions of SIPs are subject to the requirements of CAA § 110(l). Under section 110(l), the Administrator may not approve a SIP revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].”

        We considered all of the NAAQS pollutants and determined the most relevant pollutants for this evaluation are PM2.5, PM10, and ozone. PM and ozone are relevant because the EPA's recent review of the NAAQS for these pollutants resulted in more stringent standards (78 FR 3085, January 15, 2013; and 80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015). There are no nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide or lead. AQS data show the levels for these pollutants are well below the standards.
        Idaho's CRB ozone authorization level SIP revision does not affect a change in Idaho's Regional Haze SIP (approved November 8, 2012, 77 FR 66929) because it does not change or impose a limit on the quantity of light impairing pollutants emitted from crop residue burning. Idaho's 5-Year Progress Report, submitted June 28, 2016, demonstrates visibility improvement at all three of the Class I area monitoring sites, Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Current regional haze plan strategies are sufficient for Idaho and its neighboring states to meet their reasonable progress goals.

        Our findings in the 2008 approval (73 FR 23155, April 29, 2008) that CRB was not the cause of PM nonattainment issues are still valid. The same reasoning applies to the West Silver Valley nonattainment area as well. Residential wood combustion in the cold, winter months during atmospheric inversions is most responsible for elevated particulate matter in these areas. Prescribed burning in the late autumn and early spring also contributes substantially. The CRB authorization level and control measures specific to PM2.5 and PM10 are not changing under this proposed SIP revision. The revision will not interfere in attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement with respect to either PM NAAQS.
        To address 110(l) requirement for ozone, we reviewed Idaho's “Weight of Evidence” demonstration submitted September 22, 2017, and their supplemental modeling analyses submitted October 23, 2017. Based on our review of Idaho's modeling and monitor data analyses we conclude that the proposed revision to Idaho's CRB ozone authorization level will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress with the 2015 Ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
        Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a “nonattainment area” as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.” If an area meets either prong of this definition, then the EPA is obligated to designate the area as “nonattainment.” There are no areas designated as nonattainment for ozone in the state of Idaho (82 FR 54232, November 16, 2017), in part, because we do not believe Idaho is contributing to violations of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS in other states.
        III. EPA's Proposed Action

        We have reviewed Idaho's demonstration that revising the CRB ozone authorization level from seventy-five percent to ninety percent of the Ozone NAAQS is still protective of the NAAQS, will not result in an increase of emissions, and will not interfere with attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. We believe Idaho adequately justified its conclusions with respect to each of these. EPA's approval decision is based primarily on the photochemical modeling with secondary reliance on the weight of evidence demonstration put forth by Idaho. See Docket R10-OAR-2017-0566, 101_Technical Support Document_ID 2017 CRB Ozone Revision.pdf for details on our review of the state submittal. Based on the information provided by Idaho, as discussed in our Technical Support Document, we propose to approve Idaho's SIP revision and amend the authorization level for CRB to 90% of the Ozone NAAQS. Authorization levels for CRB in Idaho's SIP will remain at 75% for all other NAAQS.
        Under CAA section 110(k), EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Idaho's SIP requested in their September 22, 2017, SIP submittal. Moreover, based on the factors discussed above, we also conclude that approval of the SIP submittal will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.
        IV. Incorporation by Reference

        In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Idaho regulations for Burn Approval Criteria at IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 and Idaho Code 39-114, State Effective February 28, 2018, discussed in Section I.B. of the preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: January 11, 2018.
          Chris Hladick,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2018-01039 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 531
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0115]
        Exemptions From Average Fuel Economy Standards; Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; proposed decision to grant exemption.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed decision responds to a petition filed by Mosler Automotive (Mosler) requesting that it be exempted from the generally applicable corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for model years 2008, 2009 and 2010, and that, for Mosler, lower alternative standards be established. In this document, NHTSA proposes that the requested exemption be granted to Mosler and that an alternative standard of 22.1 mpg be established for MYs 2008 through 2010.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: The Docket Management Facility is on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading at the end of this notice.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For technical issues, contact Ken Katz, Lead Engineer, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, at (202) 366-0846, facsimile (202) 493-2290, electronic mail kkatz@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal issues, contact Rebecca Yoon of the Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Statutory Background
        Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902(d), NHTSA may exempt a low volume manufacturer of passenger automobiles from the generally applicable average fuel economy standards if NHTSA concludes that those standards are more stringent than the maximum feasible average fuel economy for that manufacturer and if NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for that manufacturer at its maximum feasible level. Under the statute, a low volume manufacturer is one that manufactured (worldwide) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year before the model year for which the exemption is sought (the affected model year) and that will manufacture fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the affected model year. In determining the maximum feasible average fuel economy, the agency is required under 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) to consider:
        (1) Technological feasibility,
        (2) Economic practicability,

        (3) The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government on fuel economy, and

        (4) The need of the United States to conserve energy.
        The statute permits NHTSA to establish alternative average fuel economy standards applicable to exempted low volume manufacturers in one of three ways: (1) A separate standard for each exempted manufacturer; (2) a separate average fuel economy standard applicable to each class of exempted automobiles (classes would be based on design, size, price, or other factors); or (3) a single standard for all exempted manufacturers (49 U.S.C. 32902(d)(2)).
        Background Information on Mosler

        Mosler is a U.S. company, organized as a Florida corporation, formed in 1987 and owned by a single American shareholder. The company headquarters are in Riveria Beach, Florida. There is an engineering/assembly facility in Norfolk, England. The company has 25 U.S. employees. Race car development was initiated by the company in 1998, and the first street vehicle for the U.S. market was produced in 2004. Subsequently, U.S. street production was suspended because of issues with compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
        The petitioner stated that it manufactured 15 vehicles in 2004. The petitioner estimates that it will produce 40 vehicles in 2008, 50 vehicles in 2009, and 60 vehicles in 2010.1

            1 As explained later in this notice, Mosler's production of any vehicles is contingent upon the grant of a pending petition for exemption under 49 CFR part 555.

        The Mosler Petition
        NHTSA's regulations on low volume exemptions from CAFE standards state that petitions for exemption must be submitted “not later than 24 months before the beginning of the affected model year, unless good cause for later submission is shown” (49 CFR 525.6(b)).
        NHTSA received the petition from Mosler on June 19, 2007, seeking exemption from the passenger automobile fuel economy standards for MYs 2008 through 2010. This petition was filed less than 24 months before the beginning of MYs 2008 and 2009, and was therefore untimely under 49 CFR part 526 for those model years. Mosler indicated that it only decided to resume production for the U.S. market after it filed a petition for an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements in January 2007. The decision to file for this exemption was only made after NHTSA granted similar exemptions in September 2006.

        Under the circumstances, NHTSA concludes that Mosler took reasonable measures to submit a petition in as timely a manner as possible. The agency notes that Mosler's ability to enter the U.S. market apparently hinges on a favorable decision regarding its petition for an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements. Mosler has filed this petition while awaiting a decision on the other petition. Therefore, the agency has determined that good cause exists for the late submission of the petition. This is consistent with previous determinations made by the agency with regard to the timeliness of petitions submitted by Spyker Automobielen B.V. (see 71 FR 49407; August 23, 2006; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25593) and DeTomaso Automobiles, Ltd. (see 64 FR 73476; December 30, 1999; Docket No. NHTSA-99-6676).
        Methodology Used To Project Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy Level for Mosler
        Baseline Fuel Economy
        To project the level of fuel economy which could be achieved by Mosler in the 2008 through 2010 model years, NHTSA considered whether there were technical or other improvements that would be feasible for these vehicles, and whether the company currently plans to incorporate such improvements in the vehicles. The agency reviewed the technological feasibility of any changes and their economic practicability.
        NHTSA interprets “technological feasibility” as meaning technology which would be available to Mosler for use on its 2008 through 2010 model year automobiles. The areas examined for technologically feasible improvements were weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements, engine improvements, drive line improvements, and reduced rolling resistance.
        The agency interprets “economic practicability” for the purpose of petitions filed under 49 CFR part 525 as meaning the financial capability of the manufacturer to improve its average fuel economy by incorporating technologically feasible changes to its 2008 through 2010 model year automobiles. In assuming that capability, the agency has always considered market demand as an implicit part of the concept of economic practicability.
        In accordance with the concerns of economic practicability, NHTSA has considered only those potential fuel economy improvements that would be compatible with the basic design concepts of Mosler's automobiles. Since NHTSA assumes that Mosler will continue to build high performance cars, design changes that would remove items traditionally offered on these types of vehicles were not considered. Such changes to the basic design would be economically impracticable since they could significantly reduce the demand for these automobiles, thereby reducing sales and causing significant economic injury to the low volume manufacturer.
        Technology for Fuel Economy Improvement
        Mosler states that the requested fuel economy value of 22.1 mpg 2
           represents the best possible CAFE that Mosler can achieve for the 2008 through 2010 model years. Mosler argues that, as racing-derived sports cars, its vehicles by their nature cannot maximize fuel economy at the expense of speed or power. Also, Mosler lags in being able to apply the latest developments in fuel efficiency technology because suppliers generally provide components and technology to small manufacturers only after supplying large manufacturers. Mosler argues that it cannot achieve substantial fuel economy gains from changes to its chassis or body design.

            2 This number is .05 mpg less than forecasted in order to allow for potential development and production variation. NHTSA also notes that fuel economy compliance is determined in tenths of mpg.

        Mosler is producing innovative sports cars using state-of-the-art design. Mosler's current vehicle, the MT900, is ultra lightweight. The double-wishbone suspension is unique. For its primary structure, the MT900 utilizes a high tech, high strength, lightweight advanced composite over an aluminum honeycomb monocoque chassis. The MT900 is aerodynamic, with a drag coefficient of 0.34cd. The weight of the vehicle is only 2440 pounds. Since the chassis/body configuration is small, aerodynamic, and lightweight, further fuel economy improvements through changes to the chassis and body appear to be limited.

        Mosler also stated that it is unable to change the supplier of the vehicle's Corvette V8 engine. Mosler stated that is has revised the gear ratios in the transmission so that the average operating engine RPM is 15% lower, improving gas mileage compared to the 2004 model year vehicle. Mosler also stated that the fuel economy label values of the vehicle (15 mpg city and 22 mpg highway) are equal to or better than those of similar vehicles, e.g., Cadillac XLR (15/22), MB 550 SL (14/22), Lamborghini Gallardo (12/18), Ferrari F 430 (13/17), and Aston Martin V8 (13/19).

        Model Mix
        Mosler has no opportunity to improve its fuel economy by changing its fleet mix since it has stated that it will only export one model to the U.S. during the years for which this petition was filed.
        Effect of Other Motor Vehicle Standards of the Government

        The need to comply with the FMVSS and other regulations are anticipated to have an adverse effect on the fuel economy of Mosler's vehicles and on Mosler's ability to improve its fuel economy. These standards include FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection, and upcoming amendments to FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. These standards may reduce achievable fuel economy values, since they result in increased vehicle weight. Mosler's projection reflected the impact of these standards. Mosler is a small company and engineering resources are limited, limiting the amount of resources Mosler can apply to comply with both the mandatory standards and the fuel economy requirements.
        Additionally, as a small volume manufacturer, the more stringent California evaporative emission standards and the U.S. EPA Tier 2-LEV II exhaust standards will be applicable. A portion of Mosler's limited engineering resources will have to be expended to comply with these more stringent standards.
        The Need of the United States To Conserve Energy
        The agency recognizes there is a need to conserve energy, to promote energy security, and to improve balance of payments. However, as stated above, NHTSA has tentatively determined that it is not technologically feasible or economically practicable for Mosler to achieve an average fuel economy in model years 2008 through 2010 above the levels set forth in this proposed decision. Granting an exemption to Mosler and setting an alternative standard at that level would not result in an increase in fuel consumption since Mosler cannot attain the generally applicable standards. Nevertheless, the agency estimates that the additional fuel that could be consumed by operating the MYs 2008 through 2010 fleets of Mosler's vehicles for the expected lifetime of these vehicles at the CAFE of 22.1 mpg (compared to a 27.5 mpg fleet) is 10,315 barrels of fuel, or about 1.09 barrels per day for the entire fleet of Mosler vehicles.3
           This is insignificant compared to the fuel used daily by the entire motor vehicle fleet, which amounts to over 9 million barrels per day for motor vehicles in the United States (USDOE/EIA, Monthly Energy Review, September 2007, Table 5.13c).4

            3 To estimate the additional fuel that could be consumed, NHTSA uses estimates of the average number of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for the entire vehicle fleet over the lifetime of the vehicle (26 years). We then divide this figure by 22.1 mpg and 27.5 mpg, and the difference between the two amounts is the additional fuel usage per vehicle over its lifetime at the reduced CAFE standard. The total additional fuel usage figure for the Mosler fleet is determined by multiplying this figure by the estimated sales figures provided by Mosler. It is likely that this is actually an overestimate of the additional fuel that will be consumed, as these vehicles will likely have a VMT below the fleet average.

            4 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/

        Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy for Mosler
        The agency has tentatively concluded that it would not be technologically feasible and economically practicable for Mosler to improve the fuel economy of its MY 2008 through 2010 fleets above an average of 22.1 mpg for those years, that Federal automobile standards would not adversely affect achievable fuel economy beyond the amount already factored into Mosler's projections, and that the national effort to conserve energy would not be affected by granting the requested exemption and establishing an alternative standard.
        Consequently, the agency tentatively concludes that the maximum feasible average fuel economy for Mosler should be 22.1 mpg for MYs 2008, 2009 and 2010.
        As discussed above, 49 U.S.C. chapter 329 permits NHTSA to establish an alternative average fuel economy standard applicable to exempted manufacturers in one of three ways: (1) A separate standard may be established for each exempted manufacturer; (2) classes, based on design, size, price or other factors, may be established for the automobiles of exempted manufacturers, with a separate fuel economy standard applicable to each class; or (3) a single standard may be established for all exempted manufacturers (49 U.S.C. 32902(d)(2)). The agency tentatively concludes that it would be appropriate to establish a separate standard for Mosler.
        While the agency has the option of establishing a single standard for all exempted manufacturers, we note that previous exemptions have been granted to manufacturers of high-performance cars, luxury cars and specialized vehicles for the transportation of persons with physical impairments. The agency's experience in establishing exemptions indicates that selection of a single standard would be inappropriate. Such a standard would have little impact on energy conservation while doing little to ease the burdens faced by small manufacturers which cannot meet the fuel economy standards applicable to larger manufacturers. Similarly, the agency is not proposing to establish alternative standards based on different classes of vehicles. Again, the agency's experience has been that vehicles manufactured by low volume manufacturers may differ widely in size, price, design or other factors. Based on the information available at this time, we do not believe it would be appropriate to establish class-based alternative standards.
        Regulatory Impact Analyses
        NHTSA has analyzed this decision and determined that neither Executive Order 12866 nor the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures apply. Under Executive Order 12866, the decision would not establish a rule, which is defined in the Executive Order as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect.” The decision is not generally applicable, since it would apply only to Mosler, as discussed in this notice. Under DOT regulatory policies and procedures, the decision would not be a “significant regulation.” If Departmental policies and procedures were applicable, the agency would have determined that this decision is not significant. The principal impact of the decision to exempt Mosler from the 27.5 mpg standard is that they would not be required to pay civil penalties if its maximum feasible average fuel economy (22.1 mpg) were achieved. Since this tentative decision sets an alternative standard at the level determined to be the maximum feasible levels for Mosler for MYs 2008 through 2010, no fuel would be saved by establishing a higher alternative standard.
        NHTSA found in the Section on “The Need of the United States To Conserve Energy” that because of the small size of the Mosler fleet, that incremental usage of gasoline by Mosler's customers would not affect the United States' need to conserve gasoline. Mosler is planning to produce 150 vehicles for the U.S. market by MY 2010. Given that over 7,602,000 passenger cars were produced for sale in the U.S. market in MY 2006,5

           Mosler's production of these vehicles would amount to .001% of the U.S. market. Thus, there are not any impacts for the public at large.

            5 “Summary of Fuel Economy Performance, March 2007” (Docket NHTSA-2007-28040-1).

        The agency has also considered the environmental implications of this decision in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and determined that it would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Regardless of the fuel economy of the exempted vehicles, they must pass EPA emissions standards which measure the amount of regulated pollutant emissions per mile traveled. The incremental carbon dioxide emissions that might result from the proposed alternative standards would have a de minimus effect on air quality, due to the extremely small size of the Mosler vehicle fleet and the difference in miles per gallon required by the proposed alternative standards. Further, since the exempted passenger automobiles cannot achieve better fuel economy than provided, the decision does not affect the amount of fuel used or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted.
        Privacy Act

        Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or at http://www.regulations.gov.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 531
          Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 531 is proposed to be amended to read as follows:

          PART 531—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Section 531.5 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows:

            § 531.5
            Fuel economy standards.

            (b)  * * *

            (16) Mosler Automotive.

              Average Fuel Economy Standard

                Model year
                Miles per gallon

                2008
                22.1

                2009
                22.1

                2010
                22.1

            Issued on: June 10, 2008.

            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

       [FR Doc. E8-13505 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BF05
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 109 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. If approved, Amendment 109 would amend the FMP to support increased participation in local small-scale groundfish fisheries managed under the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. Specifically, Amendment 109 would amend the description of observer coverage requirements in the FMP to allow catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 feet (ft) (14.0 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line gear to be placed in the partial observer coverage category when groundfish CDQ fishing. In addition, Amendment 109 would exempt operators of registered catcher vessels greater than 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA and less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear from the requirement to obtain and carry a License Limitation Program (LLP) license when conducting groundfish CDQ fishing. Amendment 109 also would update descriptive information about the CDQ Program in the FMP and make several editorial revisions. The objective of Amendment 109 is to facilitate increased participation by residents of CDQ communities in the groundfish CDQ fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI), and to support economic development in western Alaska. This action would benefit the six CDQ groups and the operators of local small hook-and-line catcher vessels that the CDQ groups authorize to participate in the groundfish CDQ fisheries by reducing the costs of participating in those fisheries.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before March 21, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0060, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0060, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

          Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Environmental Assessment prepared for this action (collectively the “Analysis”) are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sally Bibb, 907-586-7389.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) in section 304(a) requires that each regional fishery management council submit an amendment to a fishery management plan for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act in section 304(a) also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving an amendment to a fishery management plan, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council has submitted Amendment 109 to the Secretary for review. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 109 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.
        Amendment 109 to the FMP was adopted by the Council in February 2015. The objective of Amendment 109 is to facilitate increased participation by residents of CDQ communities in the groundfish CDQ fisheries in the BSAI, thereby supporting economic development in western Alaska. This action would benefit the six CDQ groups and the operators of local small hook-and-line catcher vessels that the CDQ groups authorize to participate in the groundfish CDQ fisheries by reducing the costs of participating in those fisheries.
        If approved by the Secretary, Amendment 109 would amend Section 3.2.4.1 of the FMP to revise the description of observer coverage requirements to allow catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear to be placed in the partial observer coverage category when groundfish CDQ fishing, and make several editorial revisions. The editorial revisions to Section 3.2.4.1 would replace the terms “<100% observer coverage” and “≥100% observer coverage” with the more accurate terms “partial observer coverage category” and “full observer coverage category,” and correct capitalization and grammatical errors. In addition, Amendment 109 would amend Section 3.3.1 of the FMP to add registered catcher vessels greater than 32 ft LOA and less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear when groundfish CDQ fishing to the list of exemptions from the LLP license requirements. Amendment 109 also would update descriptive information about the CDQ Program in Section 4.5.4 of the FMP, and make other miscellaneous revisions to the FMP consistent with these amendments.
        Background
        The CDQ Program is an economic development program associated with federally managed fisheries in the BSAI. The purpose of the CDQ Program is to provide western Alaska communities with the opportunity to participate and invest in BSAI fisheries, to support economic development in western Alaska, to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska. Regulations establishing the CDQ Program were first implemented in 1992. Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 through the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297) to include specific provisions governing the CDQ Program.
        The CDQ Program also is a catch share program that allocates a portion of the BSAI total allowable catch limits for specific target crab and groundfish species, a portion of the commercial catch limits for halibut assigned by the International Pacific Halibut Commission, and portions of certain prohibited species catch (PSC) limits to the CDQ Program, referred to as prohibited species quota (PSQ). These amounts are then further allocated among the six CDQ groups as allocations that may be transferred among the CDQ groups (with the exception of Chinook salmon PSQ, which may be transferred to other authorized American Fisheries Act entities). The primary focus of Amendment 109 is on the halibut CDQ allocations, the Pacific cod CDQ allocations, and allocations of the halibut PSQ needed to support the Pacific cod CDQ fisheries.
        There are 65 communities eligible to participate in the CDQ Program. Each community is represented by one of the six CDQ groups. The 65 eligible communities and the CDQ groups are identified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act at section 305(i)(1)(D) and in Table 7 to 50 CFR part 679. CDQ groups use the revenue derived from the harvest of their fisheries allocations as a basis for funding economic development activities and for providing employment opportunities. The successful harvest of CDQ Program allocations is integral to achieving the goals of the CDQ Program and the community development plans of each CDQ group. One of the most effective ways the CDQ groups provide benefits to residents of their CDQ communities is to use the CDQ allocations to create local small-scale commercial fisheries. For purposes of this notice, “local small-scale” means CDQ fisheries prosecuted by catcher vessels that are less than or equal to 46 ft LOA, using hook-and-line gear, and homeported or operated from CDQ communities. These local small-scale CDQ fisheries provide opportunities for residents of the CDQ communities to earn income from the sale of the commercially harvested fish.
        In October 2013, the Council received a proposal from the representatives of all six of the CDQ groups to revise certain Federal regulations that restrict the ability of fishermen in CDQ communities to harvest allocations of Pacific cod CDQ with small hook-and-line catcher vessels. In particular, representatives for the CDQ groups identified full observer coverage and LLP license requirements as limitations on the ability of CDQ community fishermen to retain Pacific cod CDQ when participating in the halibut CDQ fisheries or to develop separate local small-scale directed fisheries for Pacific cod CDQ. In addition, the representatives reported that recent declines in halibut CDQ allocations could prevent the CDQ Program from meeting its economic development objectives, and the ability to develop a local small-scale Pacific cod CDQ fishery would help to offset the lost halibut harvesting and processing opportunities in the CDQ communities.
        The Council considered the CDQ groups' proposal and examined several alternative ways to implement it, ultimately adopting its preferred alternative in February 2015. The Council's preferred alternative would 1) place catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear in the partial observer coverage category when they are groundfish CDQ fishing; 2) exempt operators of registered catcher vessels greater than 32 ft LOA and less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear from the requirement to obtain and carry an LLP license when groundfish CDQ fishing (catcher vessels less than or equal to 32 ft LOA already are exempt from the LLP requirements in the BSAI); 3) allow halibut caught by operators of catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear when groundfish CDQ fishing to accrue as either halibut CDQ, halibut individual fishing quota, or halibut PSC, on a trip-by-trip basis; and 4) implement new in-season management and catch accounting procedures to properly account for the harvest of groundfish and halibut and the accrual of halibut PSC by operators of catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear when halibut or groundfish CDQ fishing.
        The Council's proposed revisions to the observer coverage and LLP license requirements require both an FMP amendment (Amendment 109) and regulatory amendments to regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 679. The remaining elements of the Council's preferred alternative require only regulatory amendments for implementation. The forthcoming proposed rule to implement Amendment 109 and the regulatory amendments recommended by the Council also would revise regulations at 50 CFR part 679 to make miscellaneous editorial revisions to 50 CFR part 679. All of the proposed changes to the regulations will be described in detail in the proposed rule.

        The Council's preferred alternative is intended to provide a regulatory structure for the harvest of groundfish CDQ that provides opportunities for the small catcher vessels that fish on behalf of a CDQ group to retain additional Pacific cod and other groundfish in the halibut CDQ fishery, or to develop separate Pacific cod or other groundfish CDQ fisheries without triggering LLP and full observer coverage requirements. The Council's preferred alternative also is intended to provide additional fishing opportunities to small catcher vessel operators in CDQ communities who have had reduced harvest opportunities due to lower halibut abundance and the resulting lower CDQ allocations, and to provide the regulatory flexibility necessary for the CDQ groups to develop diversified local small-scale halibut and groundfish fisheries. The following provides additional information on the two main provisions of Amendment 109.
        Observer Coverage
        Amendment 109 would place hook-and-line catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA that are groundfish CDQ fishing in the partial observer coverage category. This proposed change would remove a significant financial and operational barrier to further development of the small vessel groundfish CDQ fisheries. In making this recommendation, the Council recognized that it is likely that few CDQ small vessels would be required to carry an observer under the existing partial observer coverage deployment strategy and deployment rates for vessels within the partial observer coverage category. To establish effective catch accounting for hook-and-line catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA that are groundfish CDQ fishing, the Council recommended that NMFS modify its catch accounting procedures and use estimates of halibut PSC and other at-sea discards for these small vessels based on the best available observer data collected from observed vessels. These recommended revisions are described in more detail in the Analysis and the forthcoming proposed rule for Amendment 109.
        LLP Exemption
        The Council determined that a new LLP exemption for registered hook-and-line catcher vessels greater than 32 ft LOA and less than or equal to 46 ft LOA when groundfish CDQ fishing was necessary to encourage the retention and sale of groundfish CDQ in the halibut fisheries and to encourage the development of directed fisheries for groundfish CDQ by vessel operators delivering catch to processors located in CDQ communities. Exemption from the LLP would remove a barrier created by the limited number of LLP licenses available for small hook-and-line catcher vessels fishing on behalf of a CDQ group. The Council determined that this limited exemption to the LLP license requirements would not undermine the objectives of the LLP because it would apply only to registered small catcher vessels when groundfish CDQ fishing. Because the CDQ groups receive specific harvest allocations, the Council determined that providing a limited exemption to registered catcher vessels greater than 32 ft LOA and less than or equal to 46 ft LOA when groundfish CDQ fishing would not result in increased harvests overall in the BSAI groundfish fisheries, or contribute to a “race for fish” among fishery participants.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 109 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 109, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 109 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 109. NMFS will consider all comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 109, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 109. Comments received after that date may not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 109. To be certain of consideration, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: January 14, 2016.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-01034 Filed 1-20-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 09-1362; MB Docket No. 09-98; RM-11536]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Leupp, AZ

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth a proposal to amend the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 73.202(b). The Commission requests comment on a petition filed by Cochise Broadcasting LLC, licensee of FM Station KZXK, Doney Park, Arizona. Petitioner proposes the substitution of FM Channel 293C2 for vacant Channel 255C2 at Leupp, Arizona. The purpose of the requested channel substitution at Custer is to allow FM Station KZXK to go from being a short-spaced station authorized pursuant to Section 73.215 of the Commission's rules and using a directional antenna to a fully-spaced station using an omnidirectional antenna. Channel 293C2 can be allotted at Leupp in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without site restriction at 35-17-02 North Latitude and 110-57-52 West Longitude. See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
            infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before August 10, 2009, and reply comments on or before August 25, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve petitioner's counsel as follows: Susan A. Marshall, Esq., Ann Goodwin Crump, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Street—Eleventh Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 418-7072.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 09-98, adopted June 17, 2009, and released June 19, 2009. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        The 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
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

            § 73.202
             [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is amended by removing Channel 255C2 and by adding Channel 293C2 at Leupp.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E9-15929 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 022205B]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Oversight Committee in March, 2005. Recommendations from the committee will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

          DATES:
          The meeting will held on Monday, March 14, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone:  (508)339-2200.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492. Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone:  (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Groundfish Oversight Committee will discuss Framework Adjustment 41 (FW 41) to the Northeast Mutlispecies Fishery Management Plan and will continue work on the biennial adjustment. FW 41 will specify the requirements for participation in the Closed Area I Haddock Special Access Program by vessels that are not members of the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector. The Committee will focus on designing measures to reduce the risk that participation by these vessels will result in a race to fish to harvest the allowable haddock Total Allowable Catch (TAC). They will also consider ways to manage the incidental catch TAC for Georges Bank cod that is harvested in this program and may address other details as well. The Committee's recommendations will be considered by the Council at the March 29-31, 2005, Council meeting. The Committee will also continue to review issues and develop options for the biennial framework adjustment that, if adopted, will be implemented May 1, 2006. At this meeting the committee will focus on several issues that do not require information on current fishing mortality and stock status. These will include, but are not limited to, modifications to the days-at-sea transfer program, a proposal for a different management approach in the northern Gulf of Maine, alternatives to the Amendment 13 default measures, and issues related to vessels that possess both a scallop trawl and limited access groundfish permit.
        Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

          Dated:  February 22, 2005.
          Peter H. Fricke,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-3706 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 390 and 396
        [Docket No. FMCSA-98-3656]
        RIN 2126-AA38
        General Requirements; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Intermodal Container Chassis and Trailers

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA withdraws its February 17, 1999, ANPRM relating to responsibilities for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers. After reviewing the public comments received in response to the ANPRM, transcripts from three listening sessions held in November 1999, comments submitted in response to the agency's November 29, 2002, notice of intent to consider a negotiated rulemaking, and the neutral convenor's final report, the agency has determined that it would be inappropriate to move forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at this time. FMCSA believes there is insufficient data concerning the relationship between the mechanical condition of intermodal container chassis and trailers, and commercial motor vehicle accidents to quantify the extent to which the condition of container chassis or trailers contributed, in whole or in part, to accidents. Furthermore, the neutral convenor hired by the agency to interview individuals or organizations that might represent interests that are most likely to be substantially affected by a rulemaking concerning this subject, has concluded that a negotiated rulemaking process seeking to produce a set of consensus recommendations to FMCSA should not be undertaken. Therefore, no further consideration will be given to conducting a negotiated rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Larry W. Minor, Chief of the Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division (MC-PSV), (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The electronic file of this document is available from the DOT public docket at http://dms.dot.gov, docket number FMCSA-98-3656. It is also available from FMCSA's Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregs/fmcsr/rulemakings; or the Federal Register Web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may request a copy of this document from the person identified above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You must identify the title and docket number of the document.

          Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
        Background
        On February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published an ANPRM to consider whether 49 CFR parts 390 and 396 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) should be amended to shift the responsibility for ensuring that intermodal container chassis and trailers comply with the applicable motor carrier safety regulations from motor carriers operating such vehicles, to entities (ocean carriers, rail carriers, intermodal terminal operators, ports) that offer these vehicles for transportation in interstate commerce. This action was in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) and the ATA Intermodal Conference (the Petitioners). The Petitioners argued motor carriers have no opportunity to maintain this equipment and that the parties who do have the opportunity often fail to do so. The Petitioners requested the FMCSRs be amended to require rail carriers, ocean carriers, and other entities that offer intermodal container chassis for transportation in interstate commerce to ensure chassis meet applicable Federal safety requirements.
        Discussion of ANPRM and Listening Session Comments
        The agency received 104 comments from 71 interested parties in response to the ANPRM and 102 individuals spoke at one or more of the three listening sessions. Most of the commenters to the docket and speakers during the listening session were motor carriers, ocean carriers, rail carriers or terminal operators. The following table identifies participants by industry sector.

            Industry sector
            Docket
            Chicago
            New York
            Seattle

            Motor Carriers/Motor Carrier Industry
            39
            15
            16
            6

            Port/Marine Terminal/Ocean Carrier/Representatives
            24
            8
            12
            12

            Railroad/Representatives
            2
            11
            8
            6

            Shipper
            1

            State Agency
            1

            Intermodal Association of North America (IANA)/Consultant/Other
            3
            2
            3
            1

            Maritime Union Members
            1

             2

            Total
            71
            36
            39
            27

        Stakeholder opinions about potential resolutions were largely polarized into one of two basic positions:
        • Motor carriers agreed with Petitioners and expressed concerns about the lack of attention to chassis maintenance on the part of the equipment providers.
        • Terminal operators and equipment providers were opposed to amending the FMCSRs to shift responsibility from motor carriers to equipment providers.

        The major issues raised and stakeholder perspectives are discussed below.
        Lack of Data To Determine Safety Impacts Current Maintenance Practices
        While the Petitioners and those in favor of the petition argued the lack of adequate maintenance by equipment providers is a safety issue, there appeared to be no data available to support this assertion. There was a lack of data presented in both the docket submissions and in the information offered at the listening sessions. The available data show a significant number of chassis dispatched from intermodal terminals are later shown to have safety defects during roadside inspection, but the relationship between these defects and accidents has not been substantiated. Overall, most of the information presented during the public meetings was anecdotal.
        The responses to the questions presented in the ANPRM and questions asked by U.S. Department of Transportation representatives (Office of the Secretary, Office of Motor Carrier Safety (prior to the establishment of FMCSA), FHWA, Federal Railroad Administration, Maritime Administration) during the listening sessions produced no meaningful data to either define the problem or evaluate potential solutions. Commenters to the docket and participants in the meetings appeared to be in agreement that better data should be developed before a decision is made by the agency to pursue this issue.
        Adequacy of Chassis Maintenance and Inspection
        The comments submitted to the docket and the remarks of participants in the public meetings suggest there is a need to clarify industry practices concerning the maintenance of intermodal container chassis. Commenters and participants indicated most ocean carriers, rail carriers, terminal operators, and motor carriers take seriously their responsibility to operate only roadworthy equipment. However, they acknowledge other members of the intermodal transportation industry are doing only the minimum necessary to “get by.”

        Commenters and participants fundamentally disagree on the adequacy of preventive maintenance and inspection practices at many terminals. Terminal operators indicated they have effective maintenance and inspection programs in place. Equipment Interchange Discussion Agreement (EIDA), an association of nine ocean common carriers, stated its members have literally hundreds of facilities employing over a thousand mechanics and inspectors and that equipment maintenance is their single largest expense. American President Lines (APL) spends over $36 million annually on 63,000 chassis; Maersk spends $17 million on 32,000 chassis, a rough average of $500 per year per chassis. A representative of an ocean carrier explained that this attention to maintenance and comprehensive equipment inspection is driven by the market realities of customer expectations.
        Generally, motor carriers agreed that some terminal operators made significant efforts to improve. However, they continue to have concerns about the equipment providers' inbound inspection process. Motor carriers believe it is in the financial interest of equipment providers to let chassis leave the terminal without noting defects or deficiencies and then pointing out mechanical problems when the container chassis is returned. The mechanical problems then are blamed on motor carriers and the costs for repairs are subsequently passed on to them.
        Motor carriers argue chassis repair and maintenance should be done before motor carriers arrive at the terminal. They believe roadability lanes offered by some equipment providers are a good idea, but preventative maintenance would be better. Chassis maintenance is too often undertaken on an as-needed basis rather than as part of a scheduled preventive maintenance program.
        Adequacy of Roadability/Walk-Around Inspections
        Commenters and participants recognize that roadability lanes are available in some terminals, but they appear to be used by only a small percentage of drivers. If roadability lanes or similar facilities are available, the time involved in using them makes this option problematic since most drayage drivers are paid by the trip, not by the hour. It was observed company drivers who are paid by the hour take advantage of roadability lanes more often than owner-operators who are paid on a per trip basis.
        Motor carriers argued that at many rail terminals drivers cannot get out of their trucks to do chassis inspection and they claim that there is no staff available to assist them. However, EIDA members and other terminal operators asserted that they provided drivers with ample opportunity to perform the required walk-around inspection prior to departure.
        Commenters emphasized that some vehicle components cannot be inspected by one person working alone. For example, checking brake adjustment typically requires one person to apply the brakes while another person measures the push-rod travel. Motor carriers argue significant mechanical defects typically cited by roadside inspectors cannot be identified during a walk-around inspection. They assert walk-around inspections cannot substitute for routine inspection and maintenance by the terminal operator's mechanics.
        Owner-operators agreed walk-around inspections do not typically reveal all the defects that Federal or State inspectors may find during a more thorough inspection. Also, if a defect is found during the walk-around inspection it is likely to generate a costly delay in leaving the terminal. Owner-operators argue the driver's walk-around inspection should be considered a back up to the routine and detailed inspection by the equipment provider, not the primary means to detect defects.
        Impacts of Changing Responsibility for Chassis Roadability
        EIDA estimates that the incremental cost of shifting this responsibility to the terminal operators would be about $200 per chassis per year. This would represent a 40-percent increase in operating costs. These increased operating costs would be ultimately borne by the transportation system and by consumers. These estimates do not include increased equipment, facility, and other capital costs. AAR estimates that it would cost the railroads over $200 million annually if maintenance responsibilities are shifted to terminals.
        Since the current Federal regulations make the chassis' roadability the responsibility of motor carriers, violations concerning chassis defects become part of the motor carrier's safety record. Roadside violations are entered electronically directly into the FMCSA's database of safety performance information about motor carriers. Consequently, motor carriers are concerned about how the chassis violations may affect their safety profiles because: (1) FMCSA's Safety Status Measurement System (SAFESTAT) scores are available to the public and can be used by insurance companies and shippers as a basis for business decisions; and (2) the FMCSA's potential use of the violation data for selecting motor carriers for compliance reviews. Regardless of whether the chassis owner accepts responsibility for the violation and pays for the repairs, the violation remains on the motor carrier's safety record. As a result, the issue of assignment of responsibility is of importance to motor carriers.
        Institutional Issues
        Motor carriers involved in port drayage operations estimate their drivers spend 25 percent or more of their time waiting in line at terminals, without compensation. Motor carriers believe that because of the highly competitive nature of the drayage industry, they have no leverage. If a motor carrier or driver insists on improved business terms he will simply be replaced.
        The National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) acknowledged the economic pressures force drivers to leave the terminal as soon as possible. Some of the commenters to the docket and participants in the public meetings believe the situation would change significantly if drivers were paid by the hour.
        The Uniform Intermodal Interchange Facilities Access Agreement (the Uniform Agreement) governs the relationship between equipment providers and motor carriers. The Uniform Agreement was initiated 20 years ago, and is continually reviewed by a multimodal committee. IANA estimates that its participants include more than 4,700 motor carriers, 6 railroads and 55 ocean carriers.
        A nine-member board administers the agreement: 3 motor carriers; 3 rail carriers, and 3 ocean or water carriers. Participants in the public meetings indicated there is a willingness to re-negotiate terms of the Uniform Agreement but not to shift responsibility from motor carriers.
        The Uniform Agreement states:

          The user, while in possession of interchange equipment, releases and agrees to hold harmless the owner from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, cost or expenses suffered or incurred arising out of or connected with injuries or death of any persons arising out of the user's use, operation, maintenance or possession of interchange equipment.

        A copy of the Uniform Agreement is included in the Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association, Ltd. (TTClub) comments. The agreement specifically states that the equipment provider makes no warranties as to the fitness of the equipment. A common addendum to the Uniform Agreement requires that the driver warrant that the equipment he is receiving is roadworthy.

        Equipment providers argue that making motor carriers responsible for the chassis is necessary because the equipment may be interchanged among several motor carriers after leaving the terminal. EIDA believes equipment providers accept responsibility for the equipment while it is in their possession and will repair any deficiencies prior to turning the equipment over to motor carriers. However, once a motor carrier accepts the chassis, the motor carrier must assume the duty of maintaining the equipment up to safety standards. The equipment providers believe the disclaimers in the agreement merely eliminate any strict liability that might otherwise be assumed.
        State Regulations
        Commenters expressed concern about a growing number of potentially conflicting State roadability laws. They believed the result would be a patchwork of inconsistent regulations negatively impacting the ability of the United States to operate a national intermodal transportation system.
        Marine terminal operators, ocean carriers, and railroads emphasize the importance of taking action to preempt current and forthcoming State regulations concerning intermodal equipment inspection and interchange that will negatively impact interstate and international commerce, intermodal transportation, and the authority of the United States Department of Transportation.
        Consideration of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process
        On November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71127), the FMCSA published a notice announcing that the agency would study the feasibility of using the Negotiated Rulemaking process to develop rulemaking options concerning the maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers.
        On February 24, 2003, FMCSA extended the comment period based upon a request by the counsel for the American Association of Railroads to allow additional time for filing comments after a planned meeting of IANA and the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA).
        The IANA/OCEMA working group subsequently failed to develop a private-sector solution to the assignment of responsibility for maintaining intermodal chassis and trailers.
        Results of the Convenor's Interviews
        Typically, the first step in examining the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking is to conduct a “convening,” or conflict assessment. During this process the convener identifies and interviews the interests that would be substantially affected by the proposed policy change and individuals or organizations that might represent those interests. Based upon the interviews, the convener identifies issues of concern that may warrant addressing, and explores whether the establishment of a committee is feasible and appropriate in the particular situation. The following are the issues the convenor identified in his report to FMCSA concerning the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking on container chassis maintenance. A copy of the report is in Docket No. FMCSA-98-3656.
        Extent of the Chassis Roadability Problem
        The interviewees that supported moving forward with the rulemaking believe equipment defects on container chassis are a serious safety problem. As with the case of commenters to the public docket, and participants in the public meetings, interviewees also indicated many of the serious defects on container chassis are not visible during a walk-around or visual inspection.
        When motor carriers leave the port terminal, according to interviewees, they are supposed to certify that the equipment is roadworthy and that there is no damage. Many motor carriers said that some terminals do relatively little about inspecting outbound chassis, but considerably more about inspecting in-bound ones. Therefore, motor carriers may be held responsible for damage that was not reported outbound, even if it was pre-existing. Some interviewees suggested the solution includes holding the equipment provider responsible for inspecting and certifying a chassis before releasing it to the motor carrier.
        Interviewees that were opposed to continuing the rulemaking believe there is a lack of data to support the Petitioners' argument that a safety problem exists with container chassis maintenance. While a number of them agreed that equipment violations are numerous, they argue that it is difficult to show the violations have caused accidents. These interviewees said that in many instances motor carriers receive citations for violations concerning equipment conditions that could not be detected during a walk-around or visual inspection. However, they do not believe such violations warranted additional Federal regulations. Some indicated they believe private-sector solutions would offer greater flexibility and be less costly and more effective than new Federal regulations.
        State Laws and Regulations
        Almost all of the interviewees expressed concern about a recent trend toward States enacting roadability laws. They indicated that in the late 1990s, Illinois, Louisiana, and South Carolina legislatures passed laws shifting responsibility for roadworthiness of intermodal chassis from motor carriers to the party tendering the intermodal equipment. Interviewees reported that most of the States are not enforcing their roadability laws.
        Interviewees expressed concern the State laws have taken differing, sometimes inconsistent regulatory approaches to coverage. The State laws were viewed as a means of dealing with vehicles that were not being properly maintained, and assigning inspection, repair and maintenance responsibilities to ensure the proper and safe operation of the chassis. Nearly all interviewees reported that a growing patchwork of inconsistent State laws would adversely impact intermodal transportation.
        There was widespread agreement among interviewees that FMCSA could make a major impact by adopting regulations, and preempting State laws and regulations. They noted States may have powerful economic incentives to limit enforcement of roadability legislation, especially given the possibility that they could risk the movement of shipping business and port operations to States with less stringent regulations, or no roadability rules at all. Two interviewees discussed personal stories where direct gubernatorial intervention halted enforcement efforts. Therefore, there is the belief State motor carrier enforcement agencies may face a difficult choice between maintaining major terminal operations that provide jobs and economic stimuli and enforcing their own rules.
        Some interviewees favored the rights of States to pass roadability laws because they believe FMCSA has not done enough to improve the condition of container chassis. However, interests were divided over whether preemption should be the end process or merely the beginning. A few interviewees believed FMCSA should preempt the States but do nothing more. Others believed FMCSA should preempt the States only if it is part of a plan or program to resolve a number of issues concerning the intermodal industry.
        Jurisdiction and Enforcement Issues

        Interviewees expressed widely divergent views as to the limits of FMCSA's legal authority relating to equipment providers such as terminal operators, rail carriers and ocean carriers that furnish chassis for transportation by motor carriers. Many believed FMCSA lacks statutory authority to regulate non-motor carrier entities.
        Uniform Agreement
        Some motor carriers expressed concern their interests are not fully represented on the governing board because they are in a minority position relative to the rail and water carriers. These motor carriers believe the Department of Transportation should regulate the interchange agreement and address the unequal bargaining power between rail/water carriers and motor carriers. Others believed the Department of Transportation should not regulate the interchange agreement because it is the result of years of evolution of the commercial relationship between the motor carriers and the equipment providers.
        Of concern to many motor carriers is that the interchange agreement states that equipment providers do not warrant the roadability of the equipment. Moreover, an addendum to the interchange agreement requires the motor carrier that picks up the equipment to accept responsibility for the roadworthiness of the chassis.
        However, some interviewees did not believe the interchange agreement is the appropriate mechanism to implement changes in the intermodal industry because usage of the interchange agreement is only voluntary. They argue that the use of the interchange agreement is prevalent, but there is no data to indicate how much of the industry is actually covered by it. In contrast, other interviewees believe changes to the uniform agreement would become the industry standard and be sanctioned by DOT.
        FMCSA Decision
        FMCSA withdraws the ANPRM because there is insufficient data to support moving forward with the rulemaking at this time. While the agency could quantify the costs of regulatory options that could potentially result in improved maintenance practices by equipment providers, there is insufficient data currently to quantify the safety benefits of such a rulemaking. The agency has reviewed information provided by commenters responding to the ANPRM, transcripts from listening sessions, safety performance data concerning motor carriers engaged primarily in intermodal transportation, and the neutral convenor's final report. FMCSA has determined it is unlikely the agency could craft a rulemaking that would resolve the maintenance responsibility disputes between equipment providers and motor carriers, and be supported with sufficient safety data to prove its necessity, and subsequently its effectiveness. The available data show a significant number of container chassis dispatched from intermodal terminals are later shown to have safety defects during roadside inspection. However, the relationship between these defects and accident causation has not been substantiated.
        FMCSA recognizes most motor carriers do not have the economic leverage to persuade equipment providers to ensure proper chassis maintenance. It is also true the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement that motor carriers typically must sign in order to do business has the effect of shifting both the maintenance or repair burden and the liability to motor carriers. Based on the comments to the ANPRM, statements from participants in the listening sessions, and the interviews conducted by the neutral convenor who examined the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking on this subject, there is no readily apparent regulatory option that would be well received among the many parties.
        There are two data limitations that prevent the agency from proceeding with a defensible rulemaking: (1) chassis inspection and accident data is lumped in among “trailer” data; and (2) relatively few accidents are shown as involving chassis, possibly because the short distances chassis travel work to reduce accident exposure or possibly because the chassis are categorized as “trailers” in the accident reports. The first step toward a Federal rule must be data collection, addressing these data limitations, and possibly identifying chassis owners whose equipment shows a pattern of poor maintenance.
        FMCSA is considering options to better capture data about chassis at the point of inspection and at accident scenes. A special study could be conducted if resources become available. However, the time required to complete a comprehensive data collection and analysis effort would prolong the period that the rulemaking is left unresolved, with no certainty regarding the outcome. Therefore, FMCSA believes it is in the best interests of all parties that the agency discontinue consideration of a negotiated rulemaking based on the convenor's final report, and withdraw its 1999 ANPRM.

          Issued on: December 1, 2003.
          Annette M. Sandberg,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 03-32075 Filed 12-30-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P