[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62496-62497]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25916]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Series of Public
Subcommittee Meetings

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

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
will hold working group and subcommittee meetings on Monday-Thursday,
October 24-27, 2011. The meetings will be open to the public for their
duration. During the first two days, Monday-Tuesday, October 24-25,
2011, a working group of the subcommittee will discuss with FMCSA
technical specifications related to wireless communications protocols
that may be needed to ensure successful and secure transmission of data
from electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) to enforcement officials.
The next two days, Wednesday-Thursday, October 26-27, 2011, will be
devoted to a meeting of the full MCSAC EOBR subcommittee. The working
group and subcommittee will discuss technical issues the full MCSAC
should consider in providing input to the Agency as it develops
functional specifications for EOBRs used in lieu of handwritten records
of duty status (RODS).
    Time and Dates: The meetings will be held Monday-Thursday, October
24-27, 2011, from 8:30 am to 5 pm, E.T. at the Sheraton Crystal City,
1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 22202, in meeting rooms
Crystal V and VI.
    Matters To Be Considered: The subcommittee will continue its review
of the functional specifications for EOBRs published by FMCSA as part
of its final rule concerning EOBRs on April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17208), but
subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit), and will provide suggestions to
address stakeholder concerns about new specifications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Adviser
to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.
The committee provides advice and recommendations to the FMCSA
Administrator on motor carrier safety programs and regulations and
operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App 2).

EOBRs

    On April 5, 2010, FMCSA issued a final rule that required the use
of EOBRs by motor carriers with significant hours-of-service
violations, as determined through an on-site enforcement intervention
(75 FR 17208). The rule also set forth new technical requirements or
functional specifications for EOBRs used in lieu of handwritten RODS.
The compliance date for the rule was June 4, 2012.
    The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) filed a
petition for judicial review of the EOBR final rule with the Seventh
Circuit. On August 26, 2011, the Seventh Circuit vacated the final rule
because the Agency failed to consider a statutory mandate to ``ensure
that [EOBRs] are not used to harass vehicle operators'' (49 U.S.C.
31137(a)). [Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n., et al. v. Fed. Motor
Carrier Safety Admin., No. 10-2340 (7th Cir. 2011).]
    The Agency will not appeal the court's decision and will issue a
final rule at a later date to remove all regulatory text from the Code
of Federal Regulations related to the vacated April 5, 2010, final
rule. However, the MCSAC subcommittee will continue its review of the
technical specifications

pertaining to EOBRs published on April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17208).

MCSAC Subcommittee (EOBR Technical Issues)

    During the MCSAC's June 20-22, 2011, public meeting, FMCSA tasked
the group to review the functional specifications included in the April
5, 2010, final rule and provide suggestions to address stakeholder
concerns about the technical requirements for EOBRs. A copy of the task
statement and all MCSAC materials related to the assignment are posted
at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov. The Agency assigned this task to the
MCSAC after making a preliminary determination that additional
information would be needed to ensure that roadside inspection
officials are able to obtain and/or retrieve EOBR data in order to
assess drivers' compliance with the HOS regulations. After the 2010
final rule was published, stakeholders in the CMV safety enforcement
and EOBR supplier communities urged that certain requirements of the
rule be revisited. Some communications methods that were presumed to be
viable when the rule was developed appear less appropriate now as
technology and government information technology security standards
have evolved.
    The MCSAC established a subcommittee to explore these complex
issues. The subcommittee's meetings were announced in the Federal
Register and open to all interested parties [(76 FR 38268), June 29,
2011)]. Following its October 27, 2011 session, the subcommittee will
submit its report to the full MCSAC. The MCSAC will review and discuss
the subcommittee's report at MCSAC's December 2011 public meeting and
submit to the Agency its recommendations concerning functional
specifications. The Agency will consider the MCSAC report in any future
rulemaking to re-establish functional specifications for EOBRs.

II. Meeting Participation

    The meetings will be open to the public for their duration. Public
comments may be heard beginning at 4:30 pm on each meeting day.
    You may submit written comments identified by Docket ID Number
FMCSA-2006-26367 by Friday, October 14, 2011, for the October 24-27
meeting using any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Do not submit the same comment by more than one method. To allow
effective public participation before the comment period deadline,
FMCSA encourages use of the Web site listed above (Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov).

III. Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For assistance with services for individuals with disabilities or
to request special assistance, please send your request to the address
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice,
or e-mail your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Friday, October 14.

    Issued on: September 30, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-25916 Filed 10-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Migration & Tourism. The MIC also claims that migration and tourism of 49 state motorcycles into California will offset, to a large degree, the emission reductions from standards that force the widespread use of catalytic converters. ( MIC, Sept. 1998; MIC, Oct. 1998b) Essentially, the MIC believes that catalyst forcing standards will result in a bifurcation of motorcycle production, with manufacturers making separate lines of California only and 49 state motorcycles. Consequently, 49 state motorcycles ( with their higher allowable emissions) will impact the projected benefits from staff's proposal, either by migrating into California or from temporary visits.

While the exact impacts migration and tourism may have on overall emission levels are unclear, we believe our proposal will minimize whatever impacts such activities may have, if any. As stated previously, the staff's proposal does not require the widespread use of advanced catalysts, but rather should result in the use of catalysts only on selected product lines. Because of this, we believe that, for most manufacturers, a fully bifurcated California only versus 49 state motorcycle production scenario is unlikely. Thus, our proposal should reduce the potential for 49 state motorcycles to adversely impact statewide emission levels through migration or tourism.

Current ARB certification data and established economic principles also support this belief. According to the 1998 certification database, some manufacturers produce California only and 49 state motorcycles, while others produce 50 state motorcycles. Manufacturers who currently produce 50 state motorcycles do so even though the existing California emission standards are 3 to 5 times more stringent than the current federal 5 g/ km HC only standard. ( See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Subpart E). The fact that these manufacturers produce a 50 state motorcycle despite the difference in State and federal emission requirements strongly suggests there are significant economic advantages to producing a 50 state motorcycle ( e. g., economies of scale, reduced distribution costs, production uniformity). We expect the economic advantages from producing a uniform, 50 state motorcycle will remain in effect for manufacturers under the staff's proposal.  1 VIII.

ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES Health and Safety Code section 57005 requires the ARB to perform a cost analysis of alternatives to the proposed regulation under specified circumstances. The analysis is required when the proposed regulation is a major regulation, which is defined as a regulation that will have a potential cost to California business enterprises in an amount exceeding ten million dollars in any single year. As discussed in Chapter VI, we determined that the annual cost of the staff's proposal will be approximately $ 1.3 million in 2004 and $ 3.2 million in 2008. Thus, the staff's proposal is not a major regulation under Health and Safety Code section 57005. Nevertheless, we recognize the importance of evaluating alternatives to the proposal which can achieve equivalent reductions within the same timeframe and at equal or less cost than the staff's proposal. We therefore considered the following regulatory alternatives to the proposed amendments. Compared to these alternatives, our current proposal represents a fair and workable approach to achieving significant emission reductions with reasonable costs to industry and consumers.

1. Adopt No New Standards As discussed previously, essentially all possible control measures which the ARB determines are technologically and commercially feasible must be implemented to meet the SIP requirements. A commitment to amend the current on road motorcycle regulation was not a formal part of the SIP when it was adopted in 1994, primarily because the ARB believed at that time that sufficient reductions could be achieved from the commitments already in the SIP. However, we have subsequently determined that additional control measures need to be implemented in order to meet the SIP commitments and contribute to achieving other air quality standards. This is especially true for meeting the so called SIP " black box" commitment. Lowering the on road motorcycle emission standards will help fulfill that commitment. Without the emission reductions to be achieved with the proposed standards, the SIP requirements will either not be met or will need to be achieved at the expense of other vehicular categories.

From an equity standpoint, amending the existing motorcycle limits as staff proposes will bring this segment of the motor vehicle industry up to date with technological improvements that have been used extensively by automobiles, trucks, and other motor vehicles for many years. It is important to recall that the original motorcycle regulation was adopted in the late 1970s and was last amended in 1984. Since then, automobiles and other motor vehicles have been required to use cutting edge emission control technologies. Thus, we believe it is appropriate to ask the motorcycle industry to help reduce air pollution along with other, more heavily regulated motor vehicle categories.  2 2. Adopt Less Stringent Standards As discussed in Chapter V, we evaluated two industry proposals: a proposal from one of the six major manufacturers and the other from the Motorcycle Industry Council. Both of these proposals are less stringent than our proposal and would achieve significantly less emission reductions. The manufacturer's proposal, a 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOx standard for Model Year 2004, is identical to our Tier 1 proposal of 1.4 g/ km. However, this industry proposal lacks a second tier standard. Instead, the proposal relies on a mid course technology review as a pre requisite to the adoption of a second tier standard. Thus, this industry proposal provides little or no incentive for manufacturers to begin their R& D efforts now toward meeting a more challenging, second tier standard that achieves greater reductions. From a benefits standpoint, we project this proposal would achieve about 0.6 tpd HC+ NOx statewide reduction by 2010, which rises marginally to about 0.7 tpd HC+ NOx reduction by 2020 ( primarily from projected sales growth).

Unlike the manufacturer's proposal, the Motorcycle Industry Council proposes a two tier approach similar to ARB staff's proposal. The MIC's proposed first tier standard of 1.5 g/ km HC+ NOx is based on the use of engine modifications without catalytic converters, an approach also used in ARB staff's first tier proposal. However, the MIC's proposed second tier standard of 1.2 g/ km HC+ NOx by 2008 achieves significantly less reductions than ARB staff's proposal of 0.8 g/ km. To illustrate, the MIC's proposal would reduce the 2010 statewide inventory by about 0.7 tpd HC+ NOx, as compared to ARB staff's proposal, which we expect will reduce the inventory by about 1.3 tpd. The difference is even more significant when the proposals' benefits are projected further into the future ( to account for full fleet turnover). By 2020, the MIC's proposal would reduce statewide HC+ NOx emissions by about 1.2 tpd, whereas the staff's proposal would reduce emissions by about 2.9 tpd. Thus, the MIC's proposal would provide significantly less reductions than ARB staff's proposal.

3. Adopt More Stringent Standards At the beginning of this rulemaking, we proposed a single, 0.2 g/ km HC+ NOx standard designed to reduce HC and NOx emissions by about 90% and 80%, respectively. This proposal probably represents the lower bound on exhaust emissions that can be achieved through extensive use of " conventional" technologies used in automobiles and some motorcycles: three way, closecoupled closed loop catalytic converters, secondary air injection, electronic fuel injection, and other engine modifications. We based this proposal on literature searches and several discussions with members of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association ( MECA). While a 0.2 g/ km or some lower HC+ NOx limit is technically feasible, it would be very challenging to manufacturers and probably not be cost effective. Therefore, we ultimately rejected this standard because, with current and foreseeable technologies, it is likely to have some significant impacts on various parameters that are important to manufacturers and consumers, including cost, driveability, safety, and aesthetics.  3 As discussed in Chapter III, our proposal underwent several revisions before arriving at the current proposal. At the first workshop in July 1998, we proposed another set of standards which were more stringent than the current proposal ( a 0.6 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOx Tier 1 limit and a 0.3 0.4 g/ km Tier 2 limit). Based on further technical discussions with industry representatives and information obtained during and subsequent to the second public workshop in October 1998, we revised our proposal two more times prior to the current proposed limits. Our analysis indicated these earlier proposed standards are feasible but more costly than the current proposal. Thus, staff underwent an extensive three step revision process in which we evaluated three, more stringent proposals before arriving at the current proposed limits.

D. Conclusions We evaluated a variety of regulatory alternatives and found that the current proposal represents a reasonable balance of potential emission benefits, use of demonstrated and emerging technologies, and minimized economic impacts.  1 IX.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES Staff presented the essential elements of the proposed amendments through two public workshops and numerous individual meetings with stakeholders. The proposed Tier 1 standard, the need for a Tier 2 standard, the corporate averaging provision and the small volumemanufacturer provision are generally consistent with industry views. However, some issues did arise with regard to the magnitude of projected emission reductions and the appropriateness of obtaining such reductions from this vehicular category; the certainty of Tier 2 compliant technology development; and the potential impacts equipment tampering by consumers may have on the projected emission reductions. These issues are discussed as follows.

1. Magnitude of Reductions and Appropriateness of Obtaining the Reductions from On road Motorcycles The Motorcycle Industry Council has raised concerns regarding the relative magnitude of the emission reductions to be achieved with staff's proposal. As noted in Chapter VII, the projected HC+ NOx emission reductions upon full implementation of staff's proposal are 1.3 tpd by 2010 and 2.9 tpd by 2020. Essentially, the issue raised by the MIC is whether the magnitude of these emission reductions justifies obtaining such reductions from the on road motorcycle category, rather than from another source. As discussed below, the air pollution situation in California requires the ARB to consider all possible ways to reduce emissions from all sources and adopt those measures which reduce emissions cost effectively. Moreover, equity requires that we ask all industries and activities, which contribute to the air pollution problem, to also contribute to the overall solution.

In previous chapters of this report, we discussed the need to achieve emission reductions from every feasible source to meet the SIP commitments. After several decades of regulatory programs, it is generally recognized that the " easy and large" reductions from a few, very visible source categories have already been achieved ( e. g., cars, refineries, smokestacks). Future incremental reductions will be achieved from many smaller sources with greater effort. For example, automobiles have already been required to achieve emission reductions of nearly 95% or more relative to their pre regulatory levels in the 1960s. However, as vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) increases and emission control technologies progress, we continue to seek the most feasible reductions we can achieve from cars and other sources. The recently proposed amendments to the Low Emission Vehicle ( LEV) and Zero Emissions Vehicle ( ZEV) regulations strive to reduce automobile emissions even further. Other categories, such as off road motorcycles, heavy duty trucks, and utility engines have also been recently regulated and required to reduce emissions.  2 To further illustrate the need to achieve all feasible reductions, we note that the ARB has recently regulated very small emission sources which, traditionally, had never been required to reduce ozone precursor emissions. A prime example of this is the ARB's consumer products program, which is designed to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons from solvent containing products used by consumers and businesses.

The most recent amendments to the consumer products regulation (" Mid Term Measures" or Phase III) added 25 new hydrocarbon limits on 18 individual categories of consumer products, ranging from automotive rubbing compounds to wasp and hornet insecticides. ( Title 17, CCR, sections 94507 94517). Of these 25 limits, 21 had emission reductions that were less than the tonnage reductions projected for on road motorcycles under the staff's proposal. Indeed, 14 of these 21 limits had projected statewide emission reductions of 500 pounds per day ( 0.25 tpd) or less by 2005. ( ARB, June 1997). Moreover, the annual cost of reducing consumer product emissions was projected to be up to ten times higher than the cost projected for the staff's proposal for motorcycles. ( Id. at Vol II, Ch VIII, p. 17). It is clear that most of these consumer product categories have reduction potentials lower than the on motorcycle category under staff's proposal. However, the fact that consumer products are regulated in California provides direct evidence of the need to evaluate all possible sources of ozone and PM precursor emissions to achieve whatever reductions are feasible and cost effective.

When the ARB adopts measures to reduce emissions, the primary goal of such efforts is to achieve the most reductions that the affected industry can cost effectively implement. Through careful balancing of industry, environmental, and consumer needs, the ARB establishes standards that maximize reductions while minimizing impacts. Since all the " easy" reductions have already been achieved, and measures under development are achieving maximum reductions at increasing costs, it is difficult to see what sources are left that have not already been regulated and can replace the reductions we are seeking from on road motorcycles. Even if such new or alreadyregulated sources were identified, reductions from on road motorcycles and all other feasible sources would still be required, given the very large magnitude of reductions needed to meet State and federal air quality standards.

2. Certainty in Development of Tier 2 Compliant Technology Some concern has been raised regarding the development of Tier 2 compliant technology. Specifically, some industry members have raised the issue of whether advanced emission controls can ever be implemented for some motorcycles. It is generally recognized that, given no other constraints, engine systems and catalysts are currently available which can meet the proposed Tier 2 standard and even lower levels. ( MIC, Oct. 1998a) However, under real world conditions, manufacturers have to balance available technology with costs and constraints unique to motorcycles. We recognize that motorcycles are not automobiles and have unique challenges with regard to limited space available for installing emission controls, vibrational stresses, rider safety, and cost impacts. We are also aware that installing emission controls on a motorcycle  3 while maintaining acceptable aesthetic qualities will challenge manufacturers on at least some product lines.

We designed our Tier 2 proposed standard to address these and other concerns. As stated previously, the Tier 2 standard is expected to result in the use of catalysts on selected product lines, rather than on most motorcycles. Thus, the universal application of catalytic converters will not be required; manufacturers would need to expend their R& D resources on engine systems and pulse air technology, with efforts spent to develop catalysts only to the extent required under corporate averaging to reach an average level of 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOx. As discussed earlier, we expect a maximum of 60% of the market would need to use catalytic converters. Given that advanced engine systems and catalytic converters have already been demonstrated on commercially available motorcycles for several years, we believe manufacturers can meet the challenges of designing and installing the necessary equipment within the next 9 years.

Even for motorcycles on which catalysts are required, the catalyst and associated equipment is challenging but not impossible, and successful catalyst use has already been demonstrated on nearly all BMW motorcycles ( BMW, 1998), some Japanese product lines, and even one Harley Davidson line. Unlike engine modifications, secondary pulse air injection, and other engine system changes we expect, catalytic converters will require some effort to installed in an acceptable manner. Riders will need to be protected from the catalyst's heat and, when catalyst visibility would be undesirable, some effort will be required to install the catalysts within the muffler system, under the engine, or elsewhere where it would not be visible. Vibrational and other engine stresses will require careful placement of the catalyst to balance the need to maintain heat input from the engine versus the need to minimize stresses on the catalyst. These and other challenges have already been met by manufacturers on some existing motorcycles, and we anticipate they will be able to resolve any design and installation issues with the remaining motorcycles within the next 9 years.

3. Potential Impacts on Program Effectiveness from Equipment Tampering From anecdotal information and limited surveillance data, we know that a portion of the motorcycle riding population tampers or has tampered with ( i. e., removed, replaced, or modified) the original equipment on their motorcycles. Such tampering includes changes that can be detrimental or beneficial to the motorcycle's emission levels. These activities frequently involve the replacement of exhaust systems, carburetor jet modifications, " tweaking" of the electronic controls, removal of catalytic converters, or other activities that may have potential negative ( or positive) impacts on emission levels. According to the MIC's limited data on exhaust only tampering, consumer tampering may be on the order of 34 percent. ( MIC, Oct. 1998a)

As discussed in Chapter X (" Future Activities"), we plan to work closely with the MIC and other stakeholders to comprehensively document tampering rates and the effects tampering has on emission levels. We anticipate our cooperative efforts will help identify the sector( s) of the rider population which tampers with original equipment on motorcycles. Through improved  4 consumer education and, if necessary, increased enforcement of existing anti tampering statutes, we hope to better quantify and ultimately reduce whatever tampering is occurring. We also plan to work closely with manufacturers to ensure that their Tier 1 and Tier 2 compliant technologies are as tamper resistant as possible. Current European regulations require tamper proof designs to address noise concerns, which we will be evaluating as a model for any tamper resistant requirements that may be necessary to maximize the effectiveness of the staff's proposal. ( Directive 97/ 24/ EC, 1997)  1 X.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES 1. Further Refinement of the Emissions Inventory As noted earlier, the Motorcycle Industry Council was instrumental in refining the emissions inventory. Further efforts will enable staff to continue refining the inventory as better data become available. First, we will work with the MIC and other industry representatives to refine vehicle activity data and deterioration factors. We will also discuss with the MIC the feasibility of improving its 5 year survey of equipment tampering to better gauge the rates of illegal engine modifications and exhaust system tampering. Finally, we will discuss with industry representatives the most effective methods for identifying and discouraging illegal tampering, which would benefit the proposal's emission reductions. We look forward to coordinating our efforts with the MIC and other industry representatives.

As with virtually all other sources of air pollution, the on road motorcycle emissions inventory will undergo refinements in the future as we gain a better understanding of the factors that influence emissions from this category. This continual improvement in emissions data is a natural result of better surveys, testing, enforcement, and other means of information gathering. The ARB staff are committed to refining the inventory for all sources of emissions as more accurate information becomes available. It should be emphasized, however, that this refinement is an on going process which should not preclude the adoption of control measures based on the best data currently available to staff. The staff's proposal, its commercial and economic impacts, and its benefits were all evaluated based on the best available data, much of which was supplied by the MIC and other industry representatives. Therefore, the staff's proposal represents the most reasonable set of standards given our current understanding of the on road motorcycle industry, the technologies needed to reduce emissions, and consumer behavior patterns that affect emissions.

2. 2006 Progress Review Our discussions with manufacturers and suppliers, as well as our review of the 1998 ARB on road motorcycle certification database, strongly support our belief that manufacturers will be able to comply with both Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards in the time provided. In particular, the proposed Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOx and the corporate averaging provision give manufacturers increased flexibility in deciding which engine families will need catalytic converters and which can do without catalysts. To ensure that manufacturers are adequately progressing in their efforts to comply, we will be conducting a mid course status review. Because the Tier 1 standard is based on the widespread use of reasonably available and demonstrated engine modifications, we do not believe a technology review prior to 2004 is necessary. Moreover, we believe manufacturers will soon begin to spend the bulk of their R& D efforts to meet the Tier 2 standard. We are therefore proposing a progress review in 2006 to:  2 ( 1) evaluate the success, cost, and consumer acceptance of engine modifications employed to meet Tier 1, and ( 2) review and discuss manufacturers' efforts to meet Tier 2, which at that point should be well under way. We believe a 2006 progress review will provide sufficient time for mid course corrections if needed to address unforeseen circumstances. REFERENCES Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1958.

Resolution 84 11, Air Resources Board, Agenda Item Nos. 84 6 4 & 84 7 1 ( April 26, 1984).

Air Resources Board, " The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone," Volumes I IV, November 1994.

Air Resources Board, " 1995 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Statewide," ( visited 10/ 16/ 98) < http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ ceidars/ emmsumcat>.

Air Resources Board, EMFAC7G ( one of the four computer models comprising the Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory ( MVEI) Models, the others being CALIMFAC, WEIGHT, and BURDEN), ( last modified 10/ 1/ 98) < http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ msei/ mvei/ program. exe>.

Letter from James R. Ryden, Administrative Law Judge, Air Resources Board, to William C. Robb, II, American Motorcycling Manufacturing ( March 17, 1998).

Air Resources Board, " Revisiting the On Road Motorcycle Regulation," Public Workshop Slide Presentation, El Monte, CA ( July 1, 1998a).

Air Resources Board, " Revisiting the On Road Motorcycle Regulation," Public Workshop # 2 Slide Presentation, El Monte, CA ( October 7, 1998b).

Tim Hoelter, Vice President International Trade and Regulatory Affairs, Harley Davidson, Address at ARB Public Workshop # 2 " Revisiting the On Road Motorcycle Regulation," ( October 7, 1998).

" 1997 Motorcycle Statistical Annual," Motorcycle Industry Council ( MIC), January 1997.

" The Motorcycle Industry in Europe," ACEM Pollution Research Programme on Motorcycles, ACEM Pollution Working Group, March 1998.

" Motorcycle Industry Council Proposal for Revising Exhaust Emission Standards for On Road Motorcycles," MIC Presentation to the California Air Resources Board, p. 3 ( October 7, 1998a).

BMW, " Info Box  Technical Encyclopedia," p. 2, ( visited 4/ 13/ 98) < http:// www. bike. bmw. com/ english/ infobox/ lexicon/ c. html>.

MBNet, "[ Yamaha] GTS1000A Development Concept," p. 3, < http:// www. mbnet. mb. ca/~ neelin/ motorcycle/ concept. html>. Mazda, " Mazda Develops New Three Way Catalyst   Further Reduces Pollutants in Exhaust Emissions," p. 1, ( visited 7/ 24/ 98) < http:// www. e. mazda. co. jp./ Publicity/ 9803/ 980317. html>. Degussa, " What's New," pp. 1 2, ( visited 7/ 24/ 98) < http:// www. degussa. com/ html/ 2_ 18_ 98_ 2. html>.

R. J. Locker, C. B. Sawyer, and P. S. Schmitt, " Demonstration of High Temperature Durability for Oval Ceramic Catalytic Converters 2," Society of Automotive Engineers ( SAE) Paper No. 980042 ( 1998).

R. N. Carter, et al., " Laboratory Evaluation of Ultra Short Metal Monolith Catalyst," SAE Paper No. 980672 ( 1998).

SAE Virtual Press Room, " Emitec, Toyota Develop Revolutionary Foil to Reduce Automotive Emissions," ( visited 7/ 28/ 98) < http:// www. eisbrenner. com/ vpr/ v_ emitec. htm> ( February 23, 1998).

B. Williamson, J. Nunan, and K. Andersen, Allied Signal Environmental Catalysts, and J. M. Best, Delphi Energy & Energy Management, " Fatigue and Performance Data for Advanced Thin Wall Ceramic Catalysts," SAE Paper No. 980670 ( 1998).

R. Brück, et al., " New Ultra Thin Wall Metal Catalysts for Close Coupled Applications," SAE Paper No. 980420 ( February 23, 1998).

Y. Song, J. Jang, and G. Yeo, Hyundai Motor Company, and J. Lee, Heesung Engelhard Company, " Development of Single Coated Pd/ Rh Three Way Catalyst for CCC Applications," SAE Paper No. 980666 ( 1998).

S. Taniguchi, T. Yoshikawa, and M. Horiuchi, International Catalyst Technology Company; D. Lindner and L. Mu mann, Degussa AG; and M. Jenkin, International Catalyst Technology; " New Low Cost and High Performance Catalyst Single Layer Pd/ Rh Catalyst Development," SAE Paper No. 980669 ( February 23 26, 1998).

N. Kishi, et al., " Development of the Ultra Low Heat Capacity and High Insulating ( ULOC) Exhaust Manifold for ULEV," SAE Paper No. 980937 ( February 1998).

Harley Davidson 1998 Parts Catalog.

Ellaird, John H., " Heat shielding foot rest for attachment to a motorcycle exhaust system," U. S. Patent # 4,023,821 ( May 17, 1977).

H. Nebu, K. Komura, and T. Yamada, " Exhaust pipe cover for motorcycles," U. S. Patent # 4,699,232 ( October 13, 1987). H. W. Hoeptner, III, " Adjustable shield for motorcycle exhaust pipe," U. S. Patent # 4,955,193 ( September 11, 1990).

O. Fumihiro, " Exhaust Pipe Structure of Motorcycle," Japan Patent # 08082214 ( March 26, 1996).

Air Resources Board, " Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons   Proposed Amendments to California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light Duty Trucks and Medium Duty Vehicles ` LEV II' and Proposed Amendments to California Motor Vehicle Certification Assembly Line and In Use Test Requirement ` CAP 2000'," p. II 55 ( September 18, 1998).

Letter from Pamela Amette, Vice President, MIC, to James R. Ryden, Administrative Law Judge, ARB ( August 14, 1998).

Thomas C. Austin, Sierra Research representing the MIC, Address at ARB Public Workshop # 2 " Revisiting the On Road Motorcycle Regulation," ( October 7, 1998).

Air Resources Board, " Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation," Volume II, Chapter III, pp. 4 6, ( June 6, 1997).

BMW, Motorcycle Specifications, ( visited 7/ 28/ 98) < http:// www. bmwusacycles. com/ machines>.

European Commission Council Directive 97/ 24/ EC, art. 1, 1997 O. J. ( L 226) 79. APPENDIX A: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ON ROAD MOTORCYCLE REGULATION Proposed Regulation Order Amend Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1958 to read as follows:

[ Note: Proposed amendments for this rulemaking are shown in bold underlined text to indicate additions and strikeout to indicate deletions.]

§ 1958. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures   Motorcycles Manufactured on or after January 1, 1978.

( a) This section shall be applicable to motorcycles produced on or after January 1, 1978. Motorcycles are excluded from the requirements of this section if:

( 1) The engine displacement is less than 50 cubic centimeters, or ( 2) An 80 kilogram ( 176 pound) driver cannot:

( A) start from a dead stop using only the engine, or ( B) exceed a maximum speed of 40 kilometers per hour ( 24.9 miles per hour) on a level paved surface. ( b) Exhaust emissions from new street use motorcycles, subject to registration and sold and registered in this state, shall not exceed:

Exhaust Emission Table of Standards ( grams per kilometer)

Exhaust Emission Standards ( grams per kilometer) Model Year Engine Displacement ( in cubic centimeters) Hydrocarbon ( HC) + Oxides of Nitrogen ( NOx) Carbon Monoxide 1978 to 1979 50 to less than 170 5.0 ( HC only) 17 1978 to 1979 170 to less than 750 5.0 + 0.0155( D 170)* ( HC only) 17 1978 to 1979 750 or greater 14 ( HC only) 17 1980 to 1981 All ( 50 cc or larger) 5.0 ( HC only) 17 1982 and subsequent 50 cc to 279 cc 1.0 ( HC only) 12 1982 through 1985 ( manufactured prior to March 1, 1985) 280 cc or greater 2.5 ( HC only) 12 1985 ( manufactured after February 28, 1985) through 1987 280 cc or greater 1.4 ( HC only), applied as a corporate average, ** provided that each engine family shall have only one applicable standard 12 1988 and subsequent through 2003 280 cc to 699 cc 1.0 ( HC only), applied as a corporate average, ** provided that each engine family shall have only one applicable standard 12 1988 and subsequent through 2003 700 cc or greater 1.4 ( HC only), applied as a corporate average, ** provided that each engine family shall have only one applicable standard 12 2004 through 2007 280 cc or greater 1.4 ( HC + NOx), applied as a corporate average, ** provided that each engine family shall have only one applicable standard 12 2008 and subsequent 280 cc or greater 0.8 ( HC + NOx), applied as a corporate average, ** provided that each engine family shall have only one applicable standard 12 * D = engine displacement of motorcycles in cubic centimeters. ** Compliance with a standard to be applied as a " corporate average" shall be determined as follows: where,

n = Class III motorcycle engine families ( engines with displacement of 280 cc or greater manufactured after February 28, 1985).

PRODjx = Number of units of Class III engine family j produced for sale in California in model year x STDjx = The manufacturer designated HC or HC + NOx emission standard, whichever applies, for engine family j in model year x, which shall be determined by the manufacturer subject to the following conditions:

( 1) no individual engine family exhaust emission standard shall exceed 2.5 g/ km, and ( 1) for Model Year 1988 through 2003 motorcycles with engine displacement of 280 cc or greater, no individual engine family exhaust emission standard shall exceed 2.5 g/ km HC, and ( 2) for Model Year 2004 and subsequent motorcycles with engine displacement of 280 cc or greater, no individual engine family exhaust emission standard shall exceed 2.5 g/ km HC+ NOx, and ( 3) no engine family designation or engine family exhaust emission standard shall be amended in a model year after the engine family is certified for the model year, and ( 4) prior to sale or offering for sale in California, each engine family shall be certified in accordance with Section 1958( c) and shall be required to meet the manufacturer's designated HC or HC + NOx standard, whichever applies, as a condition of the certification Executive Order. Prior to certification the manufacturer shall also submit estimated production volumes for each engine family to be offered for sale in California.

STDCa = A manufacturer's corporate average HC or HC + NOx exhaust emissions, whichever applies, from those California motorcycles subject to the California corporate average HC or HC + NOx exhaust emission standard, as established by an Executive Order certifying the California production for the model year. This order must be obtained prior to the issuance of certification Executive Orders for individual engine families for the model year and shall include but not be limited to the following requirements:

( 1) During the manufacturer's production year, for each engine family, the manufacturer shall provide the following information to the Executive Officer within 30 days after the last day in each calendar quarter: ( aA) vehicle identification numbers and an explanation of the identification code; ( bB) the total number of vehicles produced for sale in California and their applicable designated emissions standards.

( 2) The manufacturer's average HC or HC + NOx exhaust emissions, whichever applies, shall meet the applicable corporate average standard at the end of the manufacturer's production for the model year.

[ Note: No changes are proposed for Section 1958( b)( 3) through ( e)]

( f) ( 1) Small Volume Manufacturers: Exhaust emission standards for from Class III motorcycles of small volume manufacturers shall not be exceeded are as follows:

( A) For Model Year 1984 through 2007, no motorcycle shall emit more than 2.5 grams per kilometer hydrocarbon for the 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 model years; ( B) For Model Year 2008 and subsequent, no motorcycle shall exceed 1.4 grams per kilometer HC + NOx.

To obtain certification as a small volume manufacturer pursuant to this subsection, the manufacturer shall submit product information and estimated sales data with the certification application for each engine family sold in California. As a condition of obtaining certification as a small volume manufacturer, the manufacturer shall submit annually to the state board Executive Officer a summary of its efforts and progress toward meeting more stringent hydrocarbon HC + NOx exhaust emission standards. The summary shall include a description of the manufacturer's current hydrocarbon HC + NOx emission control development status, along with supporting test data, and future planned development work.

( 2) For purposes of this subsection ( f)( 1)( A), a small volume manufacturer is one which sells less than 5,000 new Class I, II, and III motorcycles per model year in California. For purposes of subsection ( f)( 1)( B), a small volume manufacturer is one which sells no more than 1,000 new Class I, II, and III ( combined) motorcycles in model year 2004 or any subsequent model year in California. ( g) Early Compliance Credits Manufacturers which sell Class III motorcycles in California certified as meeting either a 0.8 g/ km or 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOx level prior to Model Year 2008 can receive credits for use in the Model Year 2008 corporate average upon written approval by the Executive Officer. Each unit of Class III motorcycle sold between Model Years 1999 and 2008 and which meets the requirements of this subsection shall be multiplied by whichever X multiplier applies, as shown in the following table:

Table of Multipliers to Encourage Early Compliance with the Proposed Tier 2 Standard and Beyond Multiplier ( X) for Use in MY 2008 Corporate Averaging Model Year Sold Early Tier 2 Compliant Certified at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOx 1999 through 2004 1.5 3.0 2005 1.375 2.5 2006 1.250 2.0 2007 1.125 1.5 2008 and subsequent 1.0 1.0 Note: Each unit of early Tier 2 compliant and 0.4 g/ km certified motorcycles is counted cumulatively toward the MY 2008 corporate average.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 43101, 43104, and 43107, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39003, 43000, 43013, 43100, 43101, 43104, and 43107, Health and Safety Code; and Cal. Stats. 83, Ch. 103. APPENDIX B: REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATION, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION APPENDIX C: MEETING & WORKSHOP NOTICES, ATTENDEES' LISTS Attendees of Small Volume Manufacturers Group Meeting ( May 5, 1998)

Tom Cates Mark Boyer ( MFC)

J. C. Delaney Robert Lounsbury ( RAM Inc.)

Pamela Amette ( MIC) Lloyd Lounsbury ( RAM Inc.)

Kathleen Wolf J. C. Coker ( CEE)

Heath Glennon Bill Sterman ( Powerparts Inc.)

Kraig Kavanagh ( Ultra Cycles)

Attendees of Public Workshop # 1 ( July 1, 1998)

Tim Hurley ( Pure Steel of America) Jeff Shetler ( Kawasaki)

Lee Chapin ( Mikuni American Corp.) Kathleen Wolf ( K. H. Wolf Consulting)

Mihael Tyrrell ( Honda) Pamela Amette ( MIC)

David Raney ( Honda) Ken Boyd ( Engine Electronics, Inc.)

Scott Maas ( Excelsior Henderson Motorcycle) Edward Michel ( Harley Davidson)

William Freedman ( McCutchen, Doyle, et al.) Robert Alsip ( Suzuki)

Dana Bell ( AMA) Thomas Austin ( Sierra Research)

Dale McKinnon ( MECA) Peterson Publishing Thomas Pugh ( Yamaha) John Paliwoda ( CMDA)

SEMA CA Motorcycle Company Attendees of Public Workshop # 2 ( October 7, 1998)

Don Fuller Jeff Noonan ( JE Pistons)

Ken Bush ( Suzuki) Jeff Shetler ( Kawasaki)

Jeff Link ( Suzuki) Tom Pugh ( Yamaha)

Kathleen Wolf Ryan Tovatt ( Tovatt Engineering)

Tim Hoelter ( Harley Davidson) Dave Oakleaf ( D 37 AMA Off Road DLO)

Mike Spencer Rick Rothman ( McCutchen, Doyle, et al.)

Bob Alsip ( Suzuki) Kerry Bryant ( White Brothers)

Tom Austin ( Sierra Research) J. C. Delaney Kevin Wood ( Summit Industries) David Raney ( Honda)

John Paliwoda ( CMDA) David Koshork ( DynoJet Research)

Mike Edmonton ( Advanced Fuel Technologies) Gary Higgins ( Honda)

Wm ( Red) Edmonton ( Adv. Fuel Technologies) Dana Bell ( AMA)

Pamela Amette ( MIC) Harold Soens ( AMA D 38)

Edward Michel ( Harley Davidson) Mark Boyer ( Boyer Syndicate) Lit Mian Chan ( EF & EE) Bill Dart ( AMA District 36)

Jerry Coker ( CEE) Tom Cates ( K & N Eng.)


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44149-44151]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-8]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0755]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: LST-1166 Safety Zone, Southeastern Tip of Lord
Island, Columbia River, Rainier, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of the Columbia River encompassed in a 500 foot radius
surrounding the LST-1166 vessel located near the southeastern tip of
Lord Island at position 46[deg]07'18'' N 123[deg]00'51'' W adjacent to
the Oregon shoreline. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited during
the cleanup operation unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his designated representatives. The Captain of the Port Portland,
Oregon is taking this action to ensure the safety of boaters transiting
this area and the safety of the people conducting the cleanup operation
of the LST-1166.

DATES: This regulation is effective from 8 a.m. on July 22, 2008 to 8
p.m. on September 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0755 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard
Sector Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave., Portland, OR 97217 between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BM2 Joshua Lehner, c/o Captain of the
Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland, OR 97217-3992, and (503)
240-9311.

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for
making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. Due to the fact that the cleanup operation was only
recently authorized by the federal government, earlier notice was
unavailable. Publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest
since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of the public
and the environment during the cleanup operation. The public or
environment must not be exposed to the asbestos and PCB's which require
removal from the vessel as well as the physical cables and lines which
may surround the vessel. If normal notice and comment procedures were
followed, this rule would not become effective until after the date of
the event. For this reason, following the normal rule making procedures
in this case would be impracticable and contrary to the public.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the waters of the
Columbia River encompassed in a 500 foot radius surrounding the LST-
1166 Vessel located near the southeastern tip of Lord Island on the
Oregon shoreline. The safety zone is scheduled to start at 8 a.m. on
July 22, 2008 to 8 p.m. on September 30, 2008. The safety zone will
exclude vessels from transiting the cleanup area surrounding the LST-
1166 which will consist of cables, tow lines and dive operations. This
safety zone will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the
Port Portland. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other
federal, state, and local agencies.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary rule will create a safety zone to minimize the
inherent dangers associated with the cleanup operation of the Vessel
LST-1166. This is to allow for a safe cleanup operation of the Vessel
LST-1166 to keep the public clear any hazardous material that could be
associated with the operation. The dangers included in these operations
are, but are not limited to, navigational hazards from small
watercrafts and cleanup equipment in the waterway and any hazardous
material that could be associated with the operation such as exposure
to asbestos and PCB's. Passage through the safety zone would be
authorized by the Captain of the Port Portland, his designated
representative on scene. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends
to promote the safety of personnel and vessels in the area during these
operations.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is
unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the safety zone
established by this rule will restrict passage between the southern
shoreline of Lord Island and the Oregon shoreline of the Columbia
River. Passage through the Safety Zone will be enforced by
representatives of the Captain of the Port Portland and actively
managed by a representative on scene. The Captain of the Port may be
assisted by other federal, state, and local agencies. This regulation
is established for the benefit and safety of the public and the
personnel conduction the cleanup operation. This rule will be effective
from 8 a.m. on July 22, 2008 to 8 p.m. on September 30, 2008. For the
above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant
economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the portion of Newport Harbor during the time
mentioned under Background and Purpose.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities due to its location. Although the
safety zone

may be in place for a significant amount of time the safety zone is
small in size and is located well outside of the navigational channel
of the Columbia River. The vessels most likely to be impacted will be
recreational boaters, small passenger vessel operators and commercial
barge operators but these vessels can transit the main channel and
avoid this safety zone altogether. Because the impacts of this proposal
are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 605(b)
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this
temporary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism
under that order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State,
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs
without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay
those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded
mandate.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded,
under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because it establishes a safety zone. A
final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' will be available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. A temporary section in 165.T13-060 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-060  LST-1166 Safety Zone, Southeastern Tip of Lord
Island, Columbia River, Rainier, Oregon.

    (a) Safety Zone. The following area is a designated safety zone:
    (1) Near the southeastern most tip of Lord Island on the Oregon
Shoreline of the Columbia River, Rainier, Oregon.
    (i) Location: waters of the Columbia River encompassed in the 500
foot radius surrounding the vessel LST-1166 located at position 46[deg]
07'18'' N, 123[deg]00'51'' W.

    (ii) Effective time and date: 8 a.m. on July 22, 2008 to 8 p.m. on
September 30, 2008.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. Vessels and
persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all
lawful orders and directions of the Captain of the Port or his
designated representatives.
    (c) Vessels wishing to request permission to enter the safety zone
may contact the federal or local representatives on scene VHF Channel
16 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Fred Devine Diving & Salvage Co.
escort vessel on VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: July 22, 2008
F.G. Myer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Portland.
[FR Doc. E8-17386 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70867-70868]
[DOCID:fr23no05-117]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed continuing information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice seeks comments concerning the use of a
census form to collect data for the development of a national fire
department database.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives
many requests from fire service organizations and the general public
for information related to fire departments, including total number of
departments, number of stations per department, population protected,
and number of firefighters. The USFA also has a need for this
information to guide programmatic decisions, and produce mailing lists
for USFA publications. Recommendations for the creation of the fire
department database came out of a Blue Ribbon Panel's review of the
USFA--initiated by former FEMA Director James Lee Witt in the spring of
1998. The report included a review of the structure, mission and
funding of the USFA, future policies, programmatic needs, course
development and delivery, and the role of the USFA to reflect changes
in the fire service. The panel included 13 members of the U.S. fire
community. As a result of those recommendations, the USFA is working to
identify all fire departments in the United States to develop and
populate a national database that will include information related to
demographics, capabilities and activities of fire departments
Nationwide. In the first year of this effort, information was collected
from 16,000 fire departments. Since the first year of the collection,
an additional 8,000 departments have registered with the census for a
total of 24,000 fire departments. This leaves an estimated 9,000
departments still to respond.
    Collection of Information
    Title: National Fire Department Census.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0070.
    Abstract: Many data products and reports exist that contain
fragmented or estimated information about fire department demographics,
and capabilities, but there is no single reference source today that
aggregates this data to provide a complete and accurate profile of fire
departments in the United States. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA)
receives many requests for information related to fire departments,
including total number of departments, number of stations per
department, population protected, apparatus and equipment status. The
USFA is working to identify all fire departments in the United States
to develop and populate a national database that will include
information related to demographics, capabilities and activities. The
database will be used by USFA to guide programmatic decisions, provide
the Fire Service and the public with information about fire
departments, to produce mailing lists for USFA publications and other
materials. In the first year of this effort, information was collected
from 16,000 fire departments. Since the first year of the collection,
an additional 8,000 departments have registered with the census for a
total of 24,000 fire departments. This leaves an estimated 9,000
departments still to respond. Additionally, fire departments already
registered with the census will be contacted once every five years to
provide updates or changes to their census data so that USFA can keep
the database as current as possible. Fire departments are able to
complete the census form on-line through the USFA web site, or by
filling out a paper census form and faxing the completed form, or
sending it in a return envelope.
    Affected Public: Federal, State, local government, volunteer and
industrial fire departments.

                                       Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Number of                                                    Annual burden
            FEMA forms               respondents    Frequency of      Hours per response  (C)      hours  (A x B
                                         (A)        response  (B)                                      x C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            9,000               1  25 Minutes (.42).............           3,750
                                  -----------------
    Total........................           9,000               1  25 Minutes (.42).............           3,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: The estimated costs to the government will be
contracted direct labor and associated overhead costs of $50,000. There
would be no costs to the respondent other than the minimal direct labor
cost of a single firefighter or emergency service worker taking a small
amount of time to complete the census form and this would be applicable
only to those fire departments and emergency service agencies with
career employees. The majority of the respondents will be from
volunteer fire departments for which no direct labor costs will be
incurred. The estimate of respondent costs for those career departments
is computed as follows: Estimated number of census forms multiplied by
the national median hourly rate of a firefighter of $17.42 multiplied
by .42 (representing the estimated 25 minutes it takes to complete the
census form) and multiply that by .27 which represents the percentage
of respondents who are career (paid) personnel. Using this equation,
total estimated costs to respondents of $17,779 is derived (9,000
estimated census forms x $17.42 = $156,780 x .42 = $65,848 x .27 =
$17,779). The average cost per census form is a minimal $1.96. The
respondents are under no obligation to complete the census form and may
refuse to do so or stop at any time so the average cost to the
respondent of $1.96 could easily not be incurred by refusing to fill
out the census form.
    Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether
the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of

information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be
received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Chief,
Records Management Section, Information Resources Management Branch,
Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316,
Washington, DC 20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Gayle Kelch, Statistician,
United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center (301) 447-
1154 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management
Branch for copies of the proposed collection of information at
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: November 15, 2005.
Darcy Bingham,
Branch Chief, Information Resources Management Branch, Information
Technology Services Division.
[FR Doc. 05-23134 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-17-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18617-18618]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06986]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1066]

Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs and Activities
Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century; Accounting of

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
made $5 million per year available for the payment of Coast Guard
expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating
and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. In
2005, the law was amended, and the amount was increased to $5.5
million. The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to satisfy a
requirement of the Act that a detailed accounting of the projects,
programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating
safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the
Federal Register. In this notice, we have specified the funding amounts
the Coast Guard has committed, obligated, or expended during fiscal
year 2012, as of September 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, call
Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on
June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of
the $5 million made available to carry out the national recreational
boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be available only to
ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of title 46, U.S. Code. On September
29, 2005, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments
Act of 2005 was enacted (Public Law 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act
increased the funds available to the national recreational boating
safety program from $5 million to $5.5 million annually, and stated
that ``not less than'' $2 million shall be available only to ensure
compliance with Chapter 43 of title 46, U.S. Code.
    These funds are available to the Secretary of Homeland Security
(Secretary) from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund
established under 26 U.S.C. 9504(a) for payment of Coast Guard expenses
for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and
carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Under 46
U.S.C. 13107(c), no funds available to the Secretary under this
subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally provided
through general appropriations, nor for any purposes except those
purposes authorized; namely, for personnel and activities directly
related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational
boating safety program. Amounts made available under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c)
remain available during the two succeeding fiscal years. Any amount
that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of the 3-year period
during which it is available, shall be withdrawn by the Secretary and
allocated to the States in addition to any other amounts available

for allocation in the fiscal year in which they are withdrawn or the
following fiscal year.
    Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal
contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting
in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of
funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during
fiscal year 2012 for each activity is shown below.

Specific Accounting of Funds

    Factory Visit Program/Boat Testing Program: Funding was provided to
continue the national recreational boat factory visit program,
initiated in January 2001. Under the factory visit program, contracted
personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, visited 1,150
recreational boat manufacturers during the 2012 reporting year to
either inspect for compliance with Federal regulations, communicate
with the manufacturers as to why they need to comply with Federal
regulations, or educate them, as necessary, on how to comply with
Federal regulations. Funding was also provided for testing of certain
associated equipment and in-water testing of atypical and used
recreational boats for compliance with capacity and flotation
standards. Funding in the amount of $1,984,621 was provided for the
Factory Visit Program/Boat Testing Program, with an additional $857 for
travel expenses. ($1,985,478).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 13707(c)(1) of title 46 U.S.C. requires that ``* *
*not less than $2,000,000 be available to ensure compliance with
chapter 43 of title 46 U.S.C.[--Recreational Vessels].'' For
purposes of satisfying this requirement, we consider $100,000 of
funding for ``personnel support'' and $140,000 for ``reimbursable
salaries'' in addition to the amount of $1,985,478 itemized for
Factory Visit Program/Boat Testing Program. We did not include those
amounts in the total for Factory Visit Program/Boat Testing Program
because the broad categories of ``personnel support'' and
``reimbursable salaries'' are accounted for separately below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel: Travel by
employees of the Boating Safety Division was performed to carry out
additional recreational boating safety actions and to gather background
and planning information for new recreational boating safety
initiatives, in support of the National Recreational Boating Safety
Program Strategic Plan. ($23,367).
    Boating Accident News Clipping Services: Funding was provided to
continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents
nationally for more real time accident information and to identify
accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety
defects. ($82,900).
    Web-based Document Management System: Funding was provided to
continue to provide a web-based document management system to better
enable the handling of thousands of recreational boating recall case
and campaign reports. ($60,000).
    Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Outreach Program: Funding was
allocated for this program, which provides full marketing, media,
public information, and program strategy support to the nation-wide RBS
effort. The goal is to coordinate the RBS outreach initiatives and
campaigns, some of which include: National Boating Under the Influence
Campaign (BUI), ``Boat Responsibly!'', Life Jacket Wear, Vessel Safety
Check Program (VSC), Boating Safety Education Courses, Propeller Strike
Avoidance, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Awareness and Education, and other
recreational boating safety issues on an as needed basis. ($845,598).
    Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: Funding was
allocated to continue providing the BARD Web System, which enables
reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the
District of Columbia to submit their accident reports electronically
over a secure Internet connection. The system also enables the user
community to generate statistical reports that show the frequency,
nature, and severity of boating accidents. Fiscal year 2012 funds
supported system maintenance, development, and technical (hotline)
support. ($372,440).
    Personnel Support: Funding was provided for personnel to support
the development of new regulations and to conduct boating safety-
related research and analysis. ($681,773).
    Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was provided to carry out the work
as prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) and as described herein. The first
position was that of a professional mathematician/statistician to
conduct necessary national surveys and studies on recreational boating
activities as well as to serve as a liaison to other Federal agencies
that are conducting boating surveys so that we can pool our resources
and reduce costs. The second position was that of an Outreach
Coordinator with responsibilities that include overseeing and managing
RBS projects related to carbon monoxide poisoning, propeller injury
mitigation, and manufacturer compliance initiatives. ($296,000).
    Web site Support: Funding for this initiative provides a full range
of public media and boating safety information at http://www.uscgboating.org for a worldwide audience. It covers a wide spectrum
of boating safety related topics and is dedicated to reducing loss of
life, injuries, and property damage that occur on U.S. waterways by
improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities of recreational boaters.
($79,658).
    Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2012, $2,280,621 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an
additional $2,146,591 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed,
obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2012.

Authority

    This notice is issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 13107(c)(4).

    Dated: March 20, 2013.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-06986 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36607-36608]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-4]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0578]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; East River, New York City, NY,
Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Roosevelt Island Bridge across the East River, mile 6.4, at New York
City, New York. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain in
the closed position for one month to facilitate completion of ongoing
bridge maintenance. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a
bridge opening may do so at all times.

DATES: This deviation is effective from July 24, 2009 through August
15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0578 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search
option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0578 in the
docket ID box, pressing enter, and then clicking on the item in the
Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management

Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Roosevelt Island Bridge, across the East
River, mile 3.1, at New York City, New York, has a vertical clearance
in the closed position of 34 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at
mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are
listed at 33 CFR 117.781(c).
    The East River at the bridge location is a secondary channel not
normally used by the local seasonal recreational vessels, and
commercial vessels that can transit around Roosevelt Island on the
other side.
    The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate the
completion of construction for a major rehabilitation of the bridge.
    On March 19, 2009, we published a temporary deviation entitled
``East River, New York'' in the Federal Register (74 FR 11645) that
allowed the Roosevelt Island Bridge to remain in the closed position
from April 15, 2009 through July 14, 2009, to facilitate rehabilitation
construction at the bridge.
    On June 18, 2009, the bridge owner notified us that the
construction authorized under the above temporary deviation would not
be completed as originally scheduled on July 14, 2009, and that an
additional temporary deviation would be necessary for one additional
month, July 15, 2009 through August 15, 2009, in order to finish their
work.
    Under this temporary deviation the Roosevelt Island Bridge may
remain in the closed position from July 15, 2009 through August 15,
2009. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening
may do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-17749 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P