        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket No. FEMA-D-7600]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

          DATES:
          The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.

          ADDRESSES:
          The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        FEMA proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed base flood and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because proposed or modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.
        Regulatory Classification
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
        Executive Order 12612, Federalism
        This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
        Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, flood insurance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

            § 67.4
            [Amended]
            2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

                State
                City/town/county
                Source of flooding
                Location
                #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet (NGVD)
                  •Elevation in feet (NAVD)

                Existing
                Modified

                West Virginia
                McDowell County (Unincorporated Areas)
                Clear Fork
                Approximately 4,800 feet downstream of County Route 2
                None
                *1,409

                At the confluence with Wolfpen Branch
                None
                *1,479

                Wolfpen Branch
                At the confluence with Clear Fork
                None
                *1,479

                Approximately 4,440 feet upstream of the confluence with Clear Fork
                None
                *1,551

                Maps available for inspection at the McDowell County Redevelopment Authority, 90 Wyoming Street, Suite 205, Welch, West Virginia.

                Send comments to Mr. Gordon Lambert, President of the McDowell County Commission, 90 Wyoming Street, Suite 111, Welch, West Virginia 24801.

            (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”)

            Dated: August 10, 2004.
            David I. Maurstad,
            Acting Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

      [FR Doc. 04-18692 Filed 8-13-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 120628195-2276-01]
        RIN 0648-XC089
        Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for 2012-13

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specification; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to specify a quota (annual catch target) of 325,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands for the 2012-13 fishing year, based on a proposed annual catch limit of 346,000 lb. When the quota is projected to be reached, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed specifications and fishery closure support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 17, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed specification, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0130, may be sent to either of the following addresses:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: Mail written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted to one of the two addresses to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. 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, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-944-2108.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii is managed under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (Hawaii FEP), developed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations at Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 665.4 require NMFS to specify an annual catch limit for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council. The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernus).
        The Council's recommendation of an annual catch limit of 346,000 lb considers the most recent bottomfish stock assessment, risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, recommendations from its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and input from the public. The proposed annual catch limit is based on a 2010 stock assessment that indicated that the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish were not overfished and not subject to overfishing. The proposed annual catch limit is associated with less than a 41 percent probability of overfishing the Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI.
        Management uncertainty, influenced by unreported recreational landings, accuracy of commercial catch reporting, weather influences on the fishing activity and productivity, monitoring and forecasting capabilities, and mortality of recreational catch discards associated with high-grading, could cause the fishery to exceed the annual catch limit. Accordingly, the Council recommended a quota (annual catch target) of 325,000 lb, which is about six percent (21,000 lb) lower than the annual catch limit, to provide a sufficient buffer to ensure that the fishery does not exceed the limit.
        If the quota is projected to be reached before the end of the fishing year (August 31), NMFS will close the non-commercial and commercial fisheries for Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters through the end of the fishing year. When NMFS closes Federal waters to fishing for Deep 7 bottomfish, State of Hawaii law allows the State to adopt a complementary closure of the Deep 7 fishery in State waters. During a closure for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish in the MHI, except as otherwise authorized by law. Specifically, fishing for, and the resultant possession or sale of, Deep 7 bottomfish by vessels legally registered to Pacific Remote Island Area bottomfish fishing permits, and conducted in compliance with all other laws and regulations, are not affected by the closure. There is no prohibition on fishing for or selling other non-Deep 7 bottomfish species throughout the year.
        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed annual catch limit and quota, and will announce the final specifications prior to the scheduled reopening of the fishery on September 1, 2012. The fishery will continue until August 31, 2013, unless the fishery is closed earlier because the quota is reached. Regardless of the final annual catch limit and quota, all other management measures will continue to apply in the MHI bottomfish fishery.
        To be considered, comments on these proposed specifications must be received by August 17, 2012, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Hawaii FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.
        NMFS proposes to specify a quota (annual catch target) of 325,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands for the 2012-13 fishing year, based on a proposed annual catch limit of 346,000 lb. When the fishery is projected to reach the quota, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed specifications and fishery closure support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.
        The 2011-12 fishing year started on September 1, 2011, with a quota of 325,000 lb and an annual catch limit of 346,000 lb. From September 1, 2011, through June 28, 2012, some 456 commercial vessels reported landing 215,135 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish, at an average landed price of $7.46/lb. Based on this, the estimated average gross revenue for that period was $3,520 per vessel. The fishery is not likely to reach the quota before the current fishing year ends on August 31, 2012. NMFS proposes to specify the same quota for 2012-13 as in 2011-12. Assuming an average price of $7.46/lb and 456 participating vessels, NMFS expects the proposed 2012-13 quota of 325,000 lb to yield up to $2,424,500 in total revenue, or an average of $5,317 per vessel.
        In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing or household income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing and other income-generating activities by individual operations across the year has not been examined. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels in the current fishery are small entities under the Small Business Administration definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there are would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        Even though this proposed specification would affect a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, there would be no significantly adverse economic impact to individual vessels resulting from the implementation of this specification. Landings information from the 2010-11 fishing year (completed) and the 2011-12 fishing year (ongoing) indicate that Deep 7 bottomfish landings will likely not exceed the quota proposed for 2012-13. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), NMFS has determined that this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action is exempt from review under the procedures of E.O. 12866.

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

          Dated: July 27, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-18920 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 040706201-4201-01; I.D. 060204F]
        RIN 0648-AR97
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline for Pacific mackerel in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast.  The Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual harvest guideline for Pacific mackerel based on the formula in the FMP.  This action proposes allowable harvest levels for Pacific mackerel off the Pacific coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 4, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of the report Stock Assessment of Pacific Mackerel with Recommendations for the 2004-2005 Management Season, and the Regulatory Impact Review may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by [I.D. 060204F] by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AR97.SWR@noaa.gov.  Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA  90802.
          • Fax: (562) 980-4047.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tonya L. Ramsey, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4036.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The FMP, which was implemented by publication of the final rule in the Federal Register on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), divides management unit species into the categories of actively managed and monitored.  Harvest guidelines of actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates.  Biomass estimates are not calculated for species that are only monitored (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid).

        At a public meeting each year, the biomass for each actively managed species is reviewed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team). The biomass, harvest guideline, and status of the fisheries are then reviewed at a public meeting of the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel). This information is also reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The Council reviews reports from the Team, Subpanel, and SSC, then, after providing time for public comment, makes its recommendation to NMFS. The annual harvest guideline and season structure is published by NMFS in the Federal Register as soon as practicable before the beginning of the appropriate fishing season.  The Pacific mackerel season begins on July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 the following year.
        The Team and Subpanel meetings took place at the Long Beach, CA, office of the NMFS, Southwest Region, on May 18th and 19th, 2004.  The SSC meeting took place in conjunction with the June 13-18, 2004, Council meeting in Foster City, CA.
        A modified virtual population analysis stock assessment model is used to estimate the biomass of Pacific mackerel.  The model employs both fishery dependent and fishery independent indices to estimate abundance.  The biomass was calculated through the end of 2003, then estimated for the fishing season that began July 1, 2004, based on:  (1) the number of Pacific mackerel estimated to comprise each year class at the beginning of 2004, (2) modeled estimates of fishing mortality during 2003, (3) assumptions for natural and fishing mortality through the first half of 2004, and (4) estimates of age-specific growth.  Based on this approach the biomass for July 1, 2004, would be 81,383 metric tons (mt).  Applying the formula in the FMP would result in a harvest guideline of 13,268 mt, which is higher than last year but similar to low harvest guidelines of recent years.
        The formula in the FMP uses the following factors to determine the harvest guideline:
        1. The biomass of Pacific mackerel. For 2004, this estimate is 81,383 mt.
        2. The cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no
        commercial fishery is allowed.  The FMP established the cutoff level at 18,200 mt.  The cutoff is subtracted from the biomass, leaving 63,183 mt.
        3. The portion of the Pacific mackerel biomass that is in U.S. waters. This estimate is 70 percent, based on the historical average of larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource obtained from logbooks of fish-spotters.  Therefore, the harvestable biomass in U.S. waters is 70 percent of 63,183 mt, that is, 44,228 mt.
        4. The harvest fraction. This is the percentage of the biomass above 18,200 mt that may be harvested.  The FMP established the harvest fraction at 30 percent.  The harvest fraction is multiplied by the harvestable biomass in U.S. waters (44,228 mt), which results in 13,268 mt.

        Information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report Stock Assessment of Pacific Mackerel with Recommendations for the 2004-2005 Management Season, which may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office.
        Following recommendations of the fishing industry and Subpanel for the 2003-2004 fishing season, a directed fishery for Pacific mackerel of 7,500 mt was set beginning July 1, 2003, followed by an incidental allowance of 40 percent of Pacific mackerel in landings of any CPS, if the 7,500 mt was harvested.  A 1 mt landing of Pacific mackerel per trip would have been allowed if no other species were landed during a trip.  NMFS implemented a directed and incidental fishery last season in response to concerns about how a low harvest guideline for mackerel might interfere with the sardine fishery.  Pacific mackerel is often caught with sardine; therefore, mackerel might have to be discarded, which would increase bycatch.  As of May 10, 2004, approximately 5,616 mt of Pacific mackerel had been landed; therefore, an incidental fishery was not necessary.
        At its meeting on May 19, 2004, the Subpanel recommended for the 2004-2005 fishing season that a directed fishery of 9,100 mt and an incidental fishery of 4,168 mt be implemented.  An incidental allowance of 40 percent of Pacific mackerel in landings of any CPS would become effective when 9,100 mt of Pacific mackerel is estimated to be harvested.  The Subpanel also recommended to allow 1 mt of mackerel to be landed per trip during the incidental fishery without landing any other CPS.  The Subpanel recommended that an inseason review of the mackerel season be completed for the March 2005 Council meeting, with the possibility of reopening the directed fishery June 1, 2005, if sufficient fish remain.  At that time the NMFS Southwest Regional Administrator will review the fishery to assess whether there is a sufficient amount of the unharvested portion of the harvest guideline (i.e., anything in excess of the amount needed to support incidental harvest) to warrant a reopening of the directed fishery.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The purpose of the proposed rule is to inform the public of the 2004-2005 harvest guideline for Pacific mackerel in the exclusive EEZ off the Pacific coast.  The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual harvest guideline for Pacific mackerel based on the formula in the FMP.  The harvest guideline is derived by a formula applied to the current biomass estimate.  The formula leaves little latitude for discretion except when errors are found in the calculations or in the data.  There is no alternative to the harvest guideline as specified; there is no discretion to use an adjusted formula.  Further, there is only one stock assessment method available to establish the adult biomass used to derive the harvest guideline.  No changes are proposed in the regulations governing the fishery.
          The harvest guideline would apply to the CPS purse seine fleet, which consists of 62 small vessels fishing within U.S. waters.  These vessels fish for small pelagic fish (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel) all year and for market squid in the winter, and may harvest tuna in the U.S. exclusive economic zone seasonally when they are available, usually late in the summer and early fall.  These vessels are considered small business entities.  There should not be any significant economic impact to a substantial number of these small entities.
          The Pacific mackerel season began on July 1, 2004, and ends on June 30, 2005, or when the harvest guideline is achieved and the fishery is closed.  The proposed harvest guideline for 2004-2005 is 13,268 mt.  Of that, the directed fishery is initially allocated 9,100 mt, allowing up to 4,168 mt for incidental catches in mixed species fisheries for the rest of the year.  This is intended to prevent premature closure of the fishery targeting other CPS species such as Pacific sardine.  The 2004-2005 harvest guideline is higher than the 2003-2004 (10,652 mt) fishing year which could result in increased revenue to the fleet.  If the fleet were to take the full harvest guideline, the total revenue to the fleet would be $1.54 million for the 2003-2004 fishing season and $1.92 million for the 2004-2005 fishing season.  Thus the proposed harvest guideline could potentially increase the revenue for the 2004-2005 fishing season assuming there is no change in average ex-vessel price from the current level under existing market conditions.  However, even though the harvest guideline is increasing, the actual landings for the 2004-2005 fishing season are expected to be approximately the same as in the 2003-2004 fishing season, around 6,000 mt.  The harvest of Pacific mackerel is dependent on fishing conditions related to weather and the schooling of fish related to ocean conditions (which affects the ability of the fishermen to find them).  Assuming a harvest approximately the same as in the 2003-2004 fishing season, the only way in which small businesses could be adversely affected is if relevant market conditions, such as the need for feed for aquaculture, were to change.  No such changes are expected.  Since both fishing conditions and market conditions are expected to remain stable, there will not be any change in effect on small businesses.

        As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated:  July 14, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-16471 Filed 7-19-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket No. FEMA-B-1018]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.

          DATES:
          Comments are to be submitted on or before February 12, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

          You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1018, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3151, or (e-mail) bill.blanton@dhs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3151 or (e-mail) bill.blanton@dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
        Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.

          Administrative Procedure Act Statement. This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and do not fall under the APA.

          National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

          Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

          Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

          Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

            § 67.4
            [Amended]

            2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

                State
                City/town/county
                Source of flooding
                Location**
                * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD)
                  # Depth in feet above ground

                Existing
                Modified

                  Township of Columbia, Michigan

                Michigan
                Township of Columbia
                Goose Creek
                Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of M 50
                None
                +945

                Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of M 50
                None
                +945

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Township of Columbia

                Maps are available for inspection at Township Offices, 8500 Jefferson Road, Brooklyn, MI 49230.

                Flooding source(s)
                Location of referenced elevation**
                * Elevation in feet(NGVD)
                  + Elevation in feet
                  (NAVD)
                  # Depth in feet above ground

                Effective
                Modified
                Communities affected

                  Hamilton County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas

                Little Alapaha River
                At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary
                +79
                +81
                Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County.

                At the confluence with Little Alapaha River Unnamed Tributary
                None
                +85

                Little Alapaha River Unnamed Tributary
                At the confluence with Little Alapaha River
                None
                +85
                Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County.

                Approximately 950 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 129
                None
                +125

                Suwannee River Unnamed Tributary
                Just upstream of Jewett Street
                None
                +88
                Town of White Springs.

                Approximately 600 feet upstream of 1st Street
                None
                +109

                Timber Lake
                Entire shoreline
                None
                +135
                Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County.

                Turket Creek
                Just upstream of the confluence with the Alapahoochee River
                None
                +92
                Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County, Town of Jennings.

                Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Hamilton Avenue
                None
                +138

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street,  SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Town of Jennings

                Maps are available for inspection at Jennings Town Hall, 1199 Hamilton Avenue, Jennings, FL.

                  Town of White Springs

                Maps are available for inspection at White Springs Town Hall, 10363 Bridge Street, White Springs, FL.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County

                Maps are available for inspection at Hamilton County Clerk's Office, 207 NE 1st Street, Room 106, Jasper, FL.

                  Lamar County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas

                Gordons Creek
                Approximately 1,984 feet upstream of Interstate 59
                None
                +252
                Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County.

                At Interstate 59
                None
                +252

                Little Beaver Creek
                Approximately 0.8 miles downstream of Browns Bridge Road
                None
                +227
                Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County.

                Approximately 210 feet upstream of Browns Bridge Road
                None
                +237

                Mill Creek No. 1
                Approximately 1,800 feet downstream of Hardie Road
                None
                +260
                Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County, Town of Sumrall.

                Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of State Highway 42
                None
                +313

                Mixons Creek Tributary 3
                Approximately 935 feet upstream of the confluence of Mixons Creek
                None
                +187
                Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County.

                Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence of Mixons Creek
                None
                +235

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street,  SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Town of Sumrall

                Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 4880 Highway 589, Sumrall, MS 39482.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County

                Maps are available for inspection at County Administrator's Office, 403 Main Street, Purvis, MS 39475.

                  Lauderdale County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas

                McLemore Branch
                Approximately 2,427 feet upstream of the confluence of Newell Branch
                None
                +357
                City of Meridian, Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County.

                Approximately 3,375 feet upstream of Windmill Drive
                None
                +403

                Sowashee Creek Tributary 10
                Approximately 700 feet downstream of Dale Drive
                None
                +360
                Town of Marion, Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County.

                Approximately 710 feet upstream of Cotton Gin Road
                None
                +399

                Sowashee Creek Tributary 8
                Approximately 990 feet upstream of the confluence of Sowashee Creek Tributary 10
                None
                +388
                Town of Marion, Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County.

                Approximately 2,475 feet upstream of State Highway 39
                None
                +464

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Meridian

                Maps are available for inspection at Meridian City Hall, 601 24th Avenue, Meridian, MS 39302.

                  Town of Marion

                Maps are available for inspection at Marion Town Hall, 6021 Dale Drive, 39342, MS.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County

                Maps are available for inspection at Tax Assessor's Office, 500 Constitution Avenue, Meridian, MS 39301.

                  Clark County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas

                Chapman Creek
                3300 feet upstream from confluence of Chapman Creek and Mad River
                None
                +950
                Unincorporated Areas of Clark County

                5200 feet upstream from confluence of Chapman Creek and Mad River
                None
                +959

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Unincorporated Areas of Clark County

                Maps are available for inspection at Springview Government Center, 3130 East Main Street, Springfield, OH 45505.

                  Preble County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas

                Periwinkle Run
                Confluence with Sevenmile Creek
                None
                +1049
                Unincorporated Areas of Preble County.

                2,270 feet upstream of confluence with Sevenmile Creek
                None
                +1057

                Sevenmile Creek
                Upstream of Eaton-New Hope Road bridge
                None
                +1049
                Unincorporated Areas of Preble County.

                3,175 feet Upstream of Eaton-New Hope Road bridge
                None
                +1059

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Unincorporated Areas of Preble County

                Maps are available for inspection at Preble County Courthouse, 101 East Main Street, Eaton, OH 45320.

                  Sauk County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas

                Baraboo River
                Columbia County boundary
                +806
                +802
                City of Baraboo, City of Reedsburg, Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County, Village of Lavalle, Village of North Freedom, Village of Rock Springs, Village of West Baraboo.

                3.7 miles downstream of Juneau County boundary
                +904
                +905

                Baraboo River Tributary
                64 ft upstream of State Hwy 33
                None
                +849
                Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                350 ft upstream of Berkley Boulevard
                None
                +880

                Clark Creek
                Confluence with Baraboo River
                None
                +818
                Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                0.37 mi upstream from bridge at Tower Road
                None
                +1234

                Devil's Lake Tributary
                Confluence with Baraboo River
                None
                +819
                City of Baraboo, Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                0.57 mi upstream from County Highway DL
                None
                +979

                Hay Creek
                0.56 mi upstream of County Highway F
                None
                +909
                Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                161 ft upstream of County Highway F
                None
                +909

                Hulbert Creek
                0.32 mi upstream of U.S. Highway 12
                +826
                +827
                City of Wisconsin Dells.

                0.51 mi upstream of Trout Road (Wisconsin Dells)
                +829
                +831

                Pine Creek
                874 ft downstream of Hatchery Road
                None
                +858
                Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                Confluence with Skillet Creek
                None
                +869

                Skillet Creek
                Confluence with Pine Creek
                None
                +869
                Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                28 ft upstream of bridge at State Highway 159
                None
                +981

                Tributary to Devil's Lake Tributary
                Confluence with Devil's Lake Tributary
                None
                +871
                Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County.

                0.67 mi upstream from bridge at State Highway 159
                None
                +1117

                Wisconsin River
                6.9 miles upstream of Richland County boundary
                +710
                +711
                Village of Merrimac, Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County, Village of Prairie Du Sac, Village of Sauk City, Village of Spring Green.

                12.5 miles downstream of Kilbourn Dam
                +807
                +808

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Baraboo

                Maps are available for inspection at 135 4th Street, Barboo, WI 53913.

                  City of Reedsburg

                Maps are available for inspection at 134 South Locust Street, Reedsburg, WI 53959.

                  City of Wisconsin Dells

                Maps are available for inspection at 300 La Crosse Street, Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County

                Maps are available for inspection at 505 Broadway, Baraboo, WI 53913.

                  Village of Lake Delton

                Maps are available for inspection at 50 Wisconsin Dells Parkway South, Lake Delton, WI 53940.

                  Village of Lavalle

                Maps are available for inspection at 103 West Main Street, La Valle, WI 53941.

                  Village of Merrimac

                Maps are available for inspection at 100 Cook Street, Merrimac, WI 53561.

                  Village of North Freedom

                Maps are available for inspection at 103 North Maple Street, North Freedom, WI 53951.

                  Village of Prairie Du Sac

                Maps are available for inspection at 335 Galena Street, Prairie du Sac, WI 53578.

                  Village of Rock Springs

                Maps are available for inspection at 201 West Broadway Avenue, Rock Springs, WI 53961.

                  Village of Sauk City

                Maps are available for inspection at 726 Water Street, Sauk City, WI 53583.

                  Village of Spring Green

                Maps are available for inspection at 154 North Lexington Street, Spring Green, WI 53588.

                  Village of West Baraboo

                Maps are available for inspection at 500 Cedar Street, Baraboo, WI 53913.

            (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)
            Dated: November 3, 2008.
            Michael K. Buckley,
            Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. E8-27038 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-03-16601]
        RIN 2127-AJ12
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low Speed Vehicles

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposal addresses two petitions for rulemaking regarding the exclusion of trucks from the definition of “low-speed vehicle” (LSV). The proposed definition would expand the LSV class to include trucks, but would limit the class to small vehicles. In addition, the proposed definition is more complete than the current definition.

          DATES:
          You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than February 6, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments [identified by the DOT DMS Docket Number] by any of the following methods:

        • Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
        • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
        • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
        • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, 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 or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Requests for Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the discussion of the Privacy Act under the Comments heading.

          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 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For non-legal issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-5559, facsimile 202-493-2739, e-mail gayle.dalrymple@nhtsa.dot.gov.

            For legal issues: Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-2992, facsimile 202-366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. Background
          II. Proposed Change to Definition of Low-speed Vehicle
          III. Proposed Effective Date
          IV. Comments
          V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

        I. Background
        On June 17, 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, “Low-speed vehicles,” and added a definition of “low-speed vehicle” (LSV) to 49 CFR 571.3 (63 FR 33194). This new FMVSS and vehicle classification responded to the growing public interest in using golf cars and other similarly sized small vehicles to make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned, self-contained communities. These vehicles, many of which are electric-powered,1
           offer comparatively low-cost, energy-efficient, low-emission, quiet transportation. Electric LSVs are also known as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). The current definition of LSV is “a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck,2
           whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface.”

            1 Upon review of LSVs currently manufactured, the agency is not aware of an LSV designed with a non-electric power source.

            2 A “truck” is defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b) as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.”

        In the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking, in the preamble to the final rule, in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, and in letters of interpretation of the definition of LSV, we made it clear that our vision of an LSV is a small, lightweight vehicle that could not meet FMVSSs appropriate for larger and heavier vehicles. (The citations for these documents are provided later in this preamble.) In the NPRM, we proposed the “creation of a new class of vehicle * * * with a definitional criterion of speed alone.” Trucks were not excluded; however, low-speed vehicles with “work performing features” (such as a street sweeper) would have been excluded from the equipment requirement of the proposed standard. Not excluding trucks from the LSV definition would have had the unintended result of rendering some vehicles that already met FMVSSs subject to neither those standards nor even the minimum requirements applying to LSVs. In the preamble to the final rule, we noted:

          vehicles with “work performing equipment” (i.e., certain trucks) would have been LSVs under the proposal, although not required to meet Standard No. 500. Under the final rule, these vehicles are no longer included and must continue to meet truck FMVSSs. This change is consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, which is to eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-carrying vehicles. Further, NHTSA concludes that the truck FMVSSs remain appropriate for trucks with a speed capability between 20 and 25 miles per hour and that these standards have not inhibited their introduction in the past. (63 FR 33194, 33197.)

        The trucks under discussion in the above paragraph were heavy vehicles, such as street sweepers and other slow-moving special task vehicles. The exclusion of trucks added in the final rule was meant to prevent these heavy vehicles, which already complied with the appropriate FMVSS, from falling into the new LSV class.
        The purpose of low speed vehicles was represented to us at the public meetings prior to the NPRM to establish the LSV class and in comments to that notice, as convenient, low-cost, low-emission transportation of up to four people within the confines of a planned, often gated, community. However, as of July 2002, 17 states allow LSVs to operate on public roads with speed limits up to 35 miles per hour and one state allows their operation on roads with speed limits of up to 40 miles per hour. The laws of 27 states allow LSV operation on public roads, while not specifically regulating them, and the laws of six states prohibit LSVs on public roads without a specific authorizing regulation.3

            3 “Use of Low-speed Vehicle on Public Roads'; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; July 19, 2002.

        We continue to urge states to be very careful when contemplating the use of these vehicles on public roads. States must remain aware that LSVs do not have the occupant protection capability of other motor vehicles, that their lightweight makes their occupants very vulnerable in any collision with a non-LSV vehicle, and that the force involved in that collision increases proportional to the square of the velocity of travel. For example, the result of a vehicle collision at 35 mph is twice as severe as the same collision at 25 mph. We continue to anticipate that LSV use on roads outside confined, controlled areas will be limited by the fact that occupants will not want to travel at less than 25 miles per hour in mixed-vehicle traffic for other than very short trips, regardless of how states may or may not restrict their use.
        Since the publication of the final rule, we have received two petitions regarding the exclusion of trucks from the definition of LSV. The first was a petition for reconsideration of the final rule by Solectria (seconded by Electric Transportation Coalition) asking us to reconsider the exclusion of trucks from the definition of LSV because Solectria manufactures a micro electric pickup truck. Solectria said its truck was “suitable” for many uses off the public roads, such as airport and college properties and in parks. Solectria asked that we amend the definition of LSV to exclude only trucks with a curb weight greater than 2,200 pounds.
        In our response to Solectria's petition for reconsideration (65 FR 53219; September 1, 2000), we reiterated the discussion from the preamble to the final rule that we believed excluding trucks from Standard 500 “ensures that such trucks must continue to meet the Federal standards that have always applied to trucks with a maximum speed of more than 20 miles per hour” and that we believed the decision to be “consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, which is to eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-carrying vehicles.” We noted that FMVSSs applicable to trucks with a maximum speed between 20 and 25 miles per hour had not inhibited the introduction of such trucks in the past. However, we also stated,

          We are still considering this petition, and have not reached a decision whether to grant or to deny it. Our decision will be reflected in the notice of proposed rulemaking under consideration for establishing performance requirements for safety equipment on LSVs.

        Subsequently, the agency received a petition regarding the LSV definition from Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), a DaimlerChrysler company, in January of 2002. GEM asked that NHTSA change the definition of LSV, “to include “trucks” or vehicles designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment, so long as they meet the existing vehicle speed limitations of the definition.” GEM noted that the NPRM stated “LSVs would include all motor vehicles, other than motorcycles * * *, whose speed * * * does not exceed 25 mph,” and that the agency recognized, “that there is no reasonable justification for subjecting low-speed vehicles like golf carts and mini-bikes to full range of safety standards that apply to heavier, faster vehicles.”
        GEM contends that excluding trucks from the LSV class “ will severely limit manufacturers” ability to fully realize the potential benefits of the LSV rule.” GEM currently produces two- and four-passenger LSVs with a cargo bin and a two-passenger model with a short or long metal cargo bed. It would like to expand its line of LSVs to include “small community ambulances, and fire trucks,” and believes that applying all truck FMVSS's to these proposed NEV trucks,

          is completely arbitrary because the vehicles are not materially different from their LSV passenger vehicle cousins, and there is no evidence that somehow the vehicles are less safe than those passenger vehicle cousins. * * * Requiring these vehicles to meet the Federal standards for side impact, front impact and air bags would require a vehicle design that would be too heavy for its intended LSV uses.

        As a result of the petitions received by both GEM and Solectria, the agency has decided to reconsider the LSV definition. We tentatively agree with the petitioners that the current exclusion of trucks from the LSV definition is too broad and does not fully reflect current interpretations. Therefore, in this notice, we are proposing to drop the exclusion of trucks from the definition, and to limit the LSV class in a more complete way.
        II. Proposed Change to Definition of Low-Speed Vehicle
        The agency is proposing to amend the definition of low-speed vehicle, in response to the two petitions discussed above. If made final, the amended definition of LSV would eliminate an overly broad restriction on LSVs with cargo carrying capacity and establish a more complete definition.
        The current definition of LSV is:

            Low-speed vehicle means a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface. (49 CFR 517.3(b))

        The agency is proposing the following definition:

          Low-speed vehicle means
          (a) a 4-wheeled motor vehicle,
          (b) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface,
          (c) whose rated cargo load is at least 36 kilograms (80 pounds), and
          (d) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds).

        The amended definition would eliminate the exclusion of “trucks” from the LSV classification and address the petitioners' claim that no logical basis exists to differentiate between passenger and cargo-carrying low-speed vehicles. At the same time, the proposed definition would be more complete and would better communicate the concept that NHTSA has always expressed: LSVs are a class of vehicles for which the FMVSS for cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are inappropriate because of the small size of the vehicles in this class.
        Our Rationale for Proposing that LSVs Have a Maximum GVWR of 2500 Pounds and a Minimum Rated Cargo Load of 80 Pounds

        The NPRM that proposed to establish the LSV class, initiated “rulemaking based upon oral presentations at the agency's public meetings and written comments received on the appropriate classification and safety regulations for golf cars and other small, light-weight vehicles that are capable of being driven on the public roads.” (62 FR 1077, January 8, 1997) In every discussion of LSVs by the agency—from the public meetings preceding the 1997 NPRM through the 2002 NPRM on LSV conspicuity (67 FR 46149, July 12, 2002) 4—the agency's main reason for excluding these vehicles from compliance with other FMVSS was the idea that such compliance was inappropriate for a class of “small, lightweight vehicles.” On June 28, 2000, NHTSA replied to a request for legal interpretation regarding the definition of LSV from Thomas Dahl of Lampasas, Texas. Mr. Dahl asked, “whether speed governing devices are allowed by the NHTSA to meet the interpretation of low-speed vehicle.” In its response, the agency stated, in part:

          The preambles of the rulemaking notices under which the definition and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-Speed Vehicles were adopted, clearly indicate that the purpose of the rulemaking was to accommodate a new category of small motor vehicle which was making its appearance in retirement communities. * * * Because of their small size and light weight, these vehicles could not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards appropriate for larger and heavier vehicles, such as requirements to be met in 30 mph barrier crashes. The common feature of this emerging class of motor vehicle appeared to be a maximum speed capability of not more than 25 miles per hour as designed and manufactured, and we decided upon that as the principal feature of the definition.

        These vehicles needed to be excluded from the FMVSS because of their small size. This decision was appropriate because of the vehicles' low operating speed and restricted areas of use.
        It has become apparent from the Solectria and GEM petitions, and letters like  Mr. Dahl's, that there is a need to limit the LSV class to small vehicles, to prevent attempts to circumvent the FMVSS for cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles by applying the LSV classification to vehicle types that are able to meet the standards, and to make the definition more complete. The exclusion of trucks from the definition of LSV does not accomplish this goal. As such, we are proposing to limit the definition of LSV to small vehicles objectively through the use of a limitation on the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) combined with a requirement for a minimum rated cargo load (RCL).

        We have tentatively identified vehicles with a GVWR of less than 2,500 pounds as constituting a class of motor vehicles so small that vehicles in this class are generally unable to meet all of the FMVSS required for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, and trucks. When trucks were originally excluded from the definition of LSV, the agency was considering heavy, slow moving vehicles (e.g., street cleaners) that, because of their heavier weight, were able to meet all of the FMVSS applicable to trucks. Under the proposed definition, these heavier, but slower moving trucks would still be excluded from the definition of LSV and thus would still be required to meet all of the FMVSSs applicable to trucks.
        The tentative GVWR limit is a result of examining the GVWRs of existing NEVs, GVWR ranges submitted by companies registering with NHTSA as intending to manufacture LSVs, and, as a comparison group, small passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks that are certified to all applicable FMVSS. We also note that the Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard J2358, Low Speed Vehicles, includes in its scope:

          any powered vehicle with a minimum of 4-wheels, a maximum level ground speed of more than 32 km/h (20 mph) but less than 40 km/h (25 mph), a maximum rated capacity of 500 kg (1100 lb), and a maximum gross vehicle weight of 1135 kg (2500 lb), that is intended for transporting not more than four (4) persons and operating on designated roadways where permitted by law.

        The U.S. Department of Energy conducted a Field Operations Program, “NEVAmerica”. We examined the vehicle specifications of the vehicles involved in that program. Five examples are: the Columbia ParCar four-passenger, Ford Th!nk four-passenger, GEM E825 long bed utility, GEM E825 short bed utility, Frazer-Nash 4XLSV NEV. Specifications for these vehicles are given in the table below.

            Vehicle
            Configuration
            GVWR 5 in pounds

            GEM E825 Short Bed Utility
            2-passenger seating, 4-foot aluminum cargo bed
            1,790 6

            GEM E825 Long Bed Utility
            2-passenger seating, 6-foot aluminum cargo bed
            2,300

            Ford Th!nk Neighbor 7

            4-passenger seating,
            2,300

            Columbia ParCar
            4-passenger seating,
            2,460

            Frazer-Nash 4XLSV NEV
            2-passenger seating, pick-up truck-like bed
            3,304

            5 As listed in the NEV America results.

            6 GEM sales literature lists this vechilce as 1,850 pounds.

            7 Ford no longer produced the Th!nk vehicle.

        Thirty-nine manufacturers have registered with NHTSA as intending to manufacture LSVs. Of these, six manufacturers have listed the GVWR range of their vehicles as including vehicles over 3,500 pounds, five more list the GVWR range of their vehicles as including vehicles over 2,500 pounds, and three manufacturers do not list a GVWR range. We do not know how many of these 39 manufacturers are currently manufacturing and selling vehicles certified as LSVs or the GVWR of any vehicles certified as LSVs.
        For comparison purposes, we sought out passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks that are certified as fully compliant with all applicable FMVSS. Example vehicles and their GVWR are shown below (model year 2003).

            Vehicle
            Type
            GVWR in pounds

            Honda Insight
            Passenger car
            2,212

            Toyota Echo
            Passenger car
            3,010

            Hyundai Accent
            Passenger car
            3,310

            Chevrolet Tracker
            SUV
            3,483

            Honda Civic
            Passenger car
            3,485

            Toyota Prius
            Passenger car
            3,615

            Ford Focus
            Passenger car
            3,620

            Toyota RAV4
            SUV
            3,841

            Jeep Wrangler
            SUV
            4,450

            Ford Ranger
            Extended cab pick-up
            4,800

        It is obvious from this table that there are vehicles currently available, certified to the FMVSS, with a GVWR less than the GVWR of some NEVs. At this time, we believe that there can be no logical justification for allowing wholesale exclusion from the FMVSS of vehicles that are heavier than some fully-certified vehicles, other than providing some weight allowance for an electric propulsion system (which is generally heavier than a small internal-combustion engine). We believe that many LSVs are electric. We are especially hesitant to allow heavier vehicles to be certified as LSVs when there are currently no performance requirements for service brakes and tires appropriate for the weight of the vehicle. We are proposing to set the GVWR ceiling for the LSV class at 2,500 pounds to allow for the generally heavier electric propulsion systems and need for storage batteries. We are currently working on a rulemaking to establish performance standards for LSVs and the issue of the appropriate GVWR for LSVs could be revisited when such requirements are identified. We seek comment from vehicle manufacturers and users on the issue of the appropriate GVWR limit for LSVs.
        We are tentatively proposing an additional requirement of a minimum RCL of 80 pounds. Eighty pounds is the approximate weight of two full golf bags. GVWR must be greater than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, RCL, and 150 pounds times the number of designated seating positions (DSPs). (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3).) Given the lack of a tire performance standard applicable to this vehicle type, risk of tire failure due to vehicle overloading is increased. Combining a minimum RCL with a maximum GVWR ensures some load carrying capacity in addition to the regulatory requirement of 150 pounds per DSP. Given that these vehicles typically have only two DSPs, they are more likely than an ordinary passenger vehicle to driven fully loaded. We seek comment on our rationale for imposing a minimum RCL, and what that minimum should be.
        In summary, the proposed change to the definition of LSV would make the definition more complete and less open to the necessity of interpretation, clearer as to the type of vehicle NHTSA intended to be excluded from the FMVSS for cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles under the LSV definition, and allow the manufacturers of LSVs more flexibility in the design of their products without sacrificing the safety of the vehicles' users. Further, the crash avoidance and crash protection requirements for an LSV are appropriate for that vehicle's size regardless of whether the vehicle is designed to transport passengers or cargo.
        III. Proposed Effective Date
        This proposal would remove the provision that precludes the manufacture of trucks as LSVs, and add the restriction that LSVs must have a GVWR less than 2,500 pounds and RCL of at least 80 pounds. The agency has limited knowledge as to the number of manufacturers producing or intending to produce motor vehicles certified as LSVs under the existing definition of that term. Further, the agency has limited knowledge as to the exact specifications of the LSVs currently manufactured and is not aware of any LSV currently manufactured that would no longer be classified as an LSV under the proposed definition. However, based on the information the agency does have, we do not anticipate that any LSV currently produced would need to be redesigned to meet the proposed definition.
        Therefore, NHTSA is proposing that an effective date 45 days after the publication of a final rule. The 45 day effective date would allow LSV manufacturers the flexibility to proceed with the introduction of new vehicles as quickly as possible. The agency is requesting comment on the appropriateness of the proposed lead time.
        IV. Comments
        Questions for Comment
        In addition to comments on the proposed rule, the agency is seeking comments on the following specific issues.

        1. Are there reasons we should allow some heavier vehicles to be certified as LSVs? If so, would GVWR be sufficient to identify those vehicles or should other criteria be used in conjunction with GVWR?
        2. Is restricting the GVWR the most appropriate method of restricting the size of LSVs?
        3. Is our belief that many LSVs are electric correct and is the proposed weight allowance for the electric propulsion system appropriate?
        4. We request comment on the exact specifications of LSVs that manufacturers are currently producing or planning to produce to aid us in determining if a longer lead time should be provided. With respect to manufacturers contemplating the production of LSVs above the proposed limit, to what extent have investments been made to bring these vehicles to market?
        5. We request information on the GVWR, RCL, and power plant specifications of LSVs currently being manufactured.

        When commenting on these issues, commenters should remember that vehicles designed primarily for use off the public roads, regardless of weight or speed, are not subject to the FMVSS. Therefore, certification as an LSV is not necessary for vehicles which operate only on private roads and grounds, such as at airports, some academic and business campuses, and industrial plants and grounds.
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.
        How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location.
        You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

        1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
        2. On that page, click on “search.”
        3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-1998-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

        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 you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
        V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Based on the limited information currently available to the agency, as discussed under Section III, Proposed Effective Date, the agency tentatively concludes that the proposed amendments would not have more than a minimal impact on LSV manufacturers and users. The agency is not aware of any LSV currently produced that would no longer be classified as an LSV under the proposed definition or that would need to be redesigned because of that proposal.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on the limited information currently available to the agency, as discussed under Section III, Proposed Effective Date, I certify that the proposed amendment would not have a significant economic impact on LSV manufacturers. The proposed definition would permit more flexibility in the design of LSVs and allow manufacturers to broaden the LSV market. The agency cannot forecast the extent to which manufacturers would take advantage of that opportunity. Therefore, a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed. The agency is requesting comments on this certification.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and determined that it would not impose any new information collection requirements as that term is defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.
        The National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would have no significant impact on the human environment. LSV usage is very small in comparison to that of motor vehicles as a whole; therefore, any change to the LSV segment would not have a significant environmental effect.
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This proposal would not result in annual expenditures exceeding the $100 million threshold.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

        Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of “regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” The Executive Order defines this phrase to include regulations “that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The agency has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule regulates the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and will not have substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
        Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
        This proposed rule has no retroactive effect. NHTSA is not aware of any state law that would be preempted by this proposed rule. This proposed rule would not repeal any existing Federal law or regulation. If this proposal were to become a final rule, it would modify existing law only to the extent that it would change the definition of a low-speed vehicle. This proposed rule would not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or the initiation of other administrative proceedings before a party may file suit in court.
        Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        —Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this NPRM.
        Data Quality Guidelines
        After reviewing the provisions of proposed rule, pursuant to OMB's Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (“Guidelines”) issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002) and published in final form by the Department of Transportation on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61719), NHTSA has determined that nothing in this rulemaking action would result in “information dissemination” to the public, as that term is defined in the Guidelines.
        Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “'economically significant”' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. As noted earlier, this rule is not economically significant, nor does it concern a safety risk with a disproportionate effect on children.
        National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. In meeting that available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standard, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. This rule does not propose any standards, consensus-based or otherwise.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Low-speed vehicles.

        For reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
          1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

            Subpart A—General

          2. Section 571.3(b) would be amended by revising the term “low-speed vehicle” to read as follows:

            § 571.3
            Definitions.

            (b) Other definitions * * *

              Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means,
            (a) a 4-wheeled motor vehicle,
            (b) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface,
            (c) whose rated cargo load is at least 36 kilograms (80 pounds), and
            (d) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds).

            Dated: December 3, 2003.
            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 03-30379 Filed 12-5-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P