Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking
16,071 words·~73 min read·
/register/2006/11/24/06-9371·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision 12 CFR Part 563e [No. 2006-44] RIN 1550-AC08 Community Reinvestment Act—Interagency Uniformity AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal), OTS is proposing changes to its Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA)regulations in four areas to reestablish uniformity between its regulations and those of the other Federal banking agencies. OTS is proposing revisions to its CRA rule to promote consistency and help facilitate objective evaluations of CRA performance across the banking and thrift industries. Consistent standards could allow the public to make more effective comparisons of bank and thrift CRA performance. To advance these objectives OTS is proposing to align its CRA rule with the rule adopted by the banking agencies by:
(1)Eliminating the option of alternative weights for lending, investment, and service under the large, retail savings association test;
(2)defining small savings associations with between $250 million and $1 billion in assets as “intermediate small savings associations” and establishing a new community development test for them;
(3)indexing the asset threshold for small and intermediate small savings associations annually based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI); and
(4)clarifying the impact on a savings association's CRA rating if OTS finds evidence of discrimination or other illegal credit practices. DATES: Comments must be received by January 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by No. 2006-44, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail address: regs.comments@ots.treas.gov.* Please include No. 2006-44 in the subject line of the message and include your name and telephone number in the message. • *Fax:*
(202)906-6518. • *Mail:* Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention: No. 2006-44. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: No. 2006-44. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to the OTS Internet Site at *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1.* In addition, you may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov,* or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-7755. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celeste Anderson, Senior Project Manager, Compliance and Consumer Protection,
(202)906-7990; Richard Bennett, Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division,
(202)906-7409, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The CRA requires the Federal banking and thrift agencies to assess the record of each insured depository institution of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institution, and to take that record into account when they evaluate an application by the institution for a deposit facility. 12 U.S.C. 2903. In 1995, when OTS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC)(collectively, the four agencies) adopted major amendments to regulations implementing the CRA, they committed to reviewing the amended regulations in 2002 for their effectiveness in placing performance over process, promoting consistency in evaluations, and eliminating unnecessary burden. 60 FR 22156, 22177 (May 4, 1995). The four agencies indicated that they would determine whether and, if so, how the regulations should be amended to better evaluate financial institutions' performance under the CRA, consistent with the Act's authority, mandate, and intent. The four agencies initiated their public review in July 2001 with publication in the **Federal Register** of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 66 FR 37602 (July 19, 2001). It requested comment on whether the regulations were effective in meeting the stated goals of the 1995 rulemaking and whether any changes should be made to the rules. It solicited comment on a wide variety of issues including the large retail institution test, the small institution test, the community development test for limited purpose and wholesale institutions, strategic plans, the performance context, assessment areas, affiliate activities, and data collection and maintenance of public files. After nearly three years of discussions, in February 2004, the four agencies published a notice of proposed rulemaking. 69 FR 5729 (Feb. 6, 2004). Through it, the Agencies proposed to raise the small institution asset threshold to $500 million without regard to holding company affiliation; to amend the regulations to provide that certain discriminatory, illegal, or abusive credit practices would adversely affect the evaluation of the institution's CRA performance; and to enhance the data disclosed in CRA public evaluations and CRA disclosure statements. On July 16, 2004, the OCC and the Board announced that they would not proceed with their respective February 2004 proposals. The OCC did not formally withdraw the proposal, but did not adopt it. The Board formally withdrew its proposal. On August 18, 2004, OTS published a final rule that raised the small savings association asset threshold to $1 billion without regard to holding company affiliation effective October 1, 2004. 69 FR 51155 (Aug. 18, 2004). On August 20, 2004, the FDIC issued another proposed rule. 69 FR 51611 (Aug. 20, 2004). The FDIC proposed to raise the small institution asset threshold to $1 billion, while adding a community development activity criterion to the small institution test for banks with assets greater than $250 million up to $1 billion. It also proposed to expand the definition of “community development” to encompass a broader range of activities in rural areas. On November 24, 2004, OTS proposed further CRA regulatory reforms. 69 FR 68257 (Nov. 24, 2004). Like the FDIC, it proposed to expand the definition of “community development” to encompass certain community development activities in underserved nonmetropolitan areas. OTS also solicited comment on expanding the definition of “community development” to encompass certain community development activities in areas affected by natural or other disasters or other major community disruptions without regard to whether those areas or the individuals served were low- or moderate-income. Further, OTS solicited comment on providing additional flexibility in the CRA examinations of large retail institutions. On March 2, 2005, OTS adopted a final rule effective April 1, 2005, that provided additional flexibility under the large retail savings association test whereby the weight given to the three components of the test does not uniformly apply approximately 50 percent weight to lending, 25 percent weight to services, and 25 percent weight to investments. 70 FR 10023 (Mar. 2, 2005). After OTS adopted final rules on CRA regulatory reform, the other agencies also amended their CRA rules. On August 2, 2005, following their publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking (70 FR 12148, 12149 (Mar. 11, 2005)), the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (collectively, the three agencies) issued a joint final rule amending their CRA regulations. 70 FR 44256 (Aug. 2, 2005). The three agencies' August 2005 final rule extended eligibility for streamlined lending evaluations and the exemption from data reporting to banks under $1 billion, without regard to holding company assets. The three agencies' final rule expanded the definition of “community development” to include certain activities in underserved rural areas and disaster areas. The three agencies' final rule contained some differences from provisions OTS had proposed or finalized. It provided that the three agencies would separately evaluate and rate the community development records of institutions between $250 million and $1 billion (termed “intermediate small banks” by the three agencies), but under a new, more streamlined basis than under the large retail institution test. Under this new test, the three agencies no longer require an intermediate small bank to collect and report data on small business or small farm loans or on the location of certain nonmetropolitan mortgage loans. However, the new test contains two components, a lending test and a community development test. It also refined one aspect of the February 2004 joint proposal to provide that evidence of discrimination or evidence of credit practices that violate an applicable law, rule, or regulation could adversely affect an agency's evaluation of a bank's CRA performance. The final rule included an illustrative list of such practices. Further, it provided that the asset thresholds would be adjusted annually for inflation, based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. On April 12, 2006, OTS adopted a further final rule revising the definition of “community development” to reduce burden and provide greater flexibility to meet community needs. The revised definition is the same as the definition that the Board, OCC, and FDIC adopted in their August 2, 2005 final rule. Today's Proposal OTS believes that its rule achieved regulatory burden reduction. All four agencies have reduced the regulatory burden associated with the CRA regulations through steps such as amending the definition of small bank. However, OTS believes consistent standards applied equally across the banking and thrift industries could facilitate objective evaluations of CRA performance and ensure accurate assessments of institutions that operate in the same market. As a result, OTS is proposing to align its CRA regulation with those of the other Federal banking agencies to best serve the interests of insured depository institutions and their communities by providing for consistency in regulation and compliance. In issuing this proposal, OTS notes that savings associations have an excellent record in the provision of credit, investments, and services in their markets, particularly in low- to moderate-income communities. It is OTS's experience that, as a percentage of their total assets, savings associations far outdistance banks and other lenders in originating multi-family housing loans, a vehicle frequently utilized to provide affordable housing. 1 OTS believes savings associations will continue to serve their markets, including low- and moderate-income communities, regardless of the applicable CRA rules. 1 OTS calculates that as of June 30, 2006, savings associations had 4.41% of their assets in multifamily loans whereas commercial banks had only 1.03% of their assets in multifamily loans. Accordingly, OTS is proposing changes to its CRA regulations in four areas. While the preamble addresses each area in turn, the overriding question OTS poses to commenters with respect to each area is whether the benefits of greater regulatory uniformity and any other benefits outweigh any potential disadvantages. OTS also invites comment on all aspects of the proposal, including whether OTS should make any variations to the approach adopted by the other Federal banking agencies in any of these areas. 1. Alternative Weights OTS's March 2005 final rule provided additional flexibility for the weights given to lending, services, and investments for each examination under the large retail savings association test. OTS issued guidance on April 7, 2005, explaining the methodology it would apply through Thrift Bulletin 85 (April 7, 2005). The other three agencies have not adopted this approach. OTS is proposing to eliminate alternative weights to facilitate uniformity in the assessment of CRA performance between banks and thrifts. Most large institutions elected to continue to allocate weights under the three performance categories of lending, investments, and services. Retaining Flexibility OTS notes that if the agency eliminates the alternative weight option for large savings associations, large savings associations would retain flexibility to focus their CRA efforts with emphasis on lending, just as they have in the past. For example, a savings association with outstanding performance in lending and services would still receive an “outstanding” CRA rating overall, even if it makes few or no qualified investments. Additionally, a savings association with a poor record on the service test and few or no qualified investments would still receive a “satisfactory” CRA rating overall if its lending is at least highly satisfactory. As explained in the preamble to OTS's March 2005 final rule, a savings association with a strong lending record has always been able to receive at least a “low satisfactory” rating on the investment test while making few or no qualified investments due to limits on savings associations' investment authority. 70 FR at 10025. This policy originated in the preamble to 1995 CRA rule. The preamble explained that because of differences between savings associations and other financial institutions ( *e.g.* , the qualified thrift lender test and lending and investment limits on commercial loans and community development investments) a savings association could receive at least a “low satisfactory” rating on the investment test without making qualified investments depending upon its lending performance. 60 FR at 22163. Similarly, the 2001 Interagency Q&A Regarding Community Reinvestment indicate that a savings association that has made few or no qualified investments due to its limited investment authority may still receive a satisfactory rating under the investment test if it has a strong lending record. Q&A 21(b)(4), 66 FR 36620, 36631 (July 12, 2001). If OTS eliminates the alternative weight option, these principles would continue to apply. Further, a savings association that would like OTS to evaluate its performance based on even more flexible criteria could opt for a strategic plan. While a strategic plan for a large retail savings association should generally address all three performance categories (lending, service, and investment), a different emphasis, including a focus on one or more performance categories, may be appropriate. The CRA rule specifically provides—and would continue to provide—that such a focus may be appropriate if responsive to the characteristics and credit needs of its assessment area, considering public comment and the savings association's capacity and constraints, product offerings, and business strategy. 12 CFR 563e.27(f)(ii). OTS solicits comment. Should OTS eliminate or retain the alternative weight option? Do the benefits of greater uniformity and any other benefits associated with eliminating the alternative weight option outweigh any potential disadvantages? If OTS eliminates the alternative weight option, what transition period, if any, should OTS provide for savings associations that have already begun adjusting their CRA-related programs in anticipation of having this flexibility on their next examination? 2. Community Development Test OTS's August 2004 final rule raised the small savings association asset threshold from $250 million to $1 billion and eliminated consideration of holding company affiliation. This change enabled OTS to evaluate the CRA performance of savings associations with $250 million or more, but less than $1 billion, in assets under the small savings association test. In contrast to OTS, the other three agencies imposed a different community development test for institutions with $250 million or more, but less than $1 billion, in assets, which they call “intermediate small banks.” Under their test, the three agencies evaluate an intermediate small bank's lending performance under the small bank lending criteria, but they also evaluate the bank's community development performance under the following criteria: • The number and amount of community development loans; • The number and amount of qualified investments; • The extent to which the bank provides community development services; and • The bank's responsiveness through such activities to community development lending, investment, and services needs. OTS is proposing to adopt the intermediate small institution test. OTS believes that intermediate small savings associations are responsive to the community development needs within the communities they serve. The adoption of the intermediate small institution test will provide a more comprehensive framework for assessing the community development performance of intermediate small savings associations than the small savings association performance criteria. In addition, adopting the intermediate small institution test will assist the public in making a reasonable comparison of community development performance between banks and savings associations operating in the same market. OTS anticipates that if it adopts this test, it would allow flexibility. This proposal does not prescribe a required threshold for community development loans, qualified investments, and community development services. Instead, based on the savings association's assessment of community development needs in its assessment area(s), it would be able to engage in those categories of community development activities that are responsive to observed needs and consistent with the savings association's capacity. Savings associations that have been providing community development loans and services would find that OTS continues to give those activities credit when OTS evaluates compliance under the new test. Further, as under the large retail institution test, examiners would take into account statutory and supervisory limitations on a savings association's ability to engage in any lending, investment, and service activities. For example, OTS could still deem a savings association that has made few or no qualified investments due to limits on investment authority to have satisfied the criterion in the community development component of the test regarding “the number and amount of qualified investments” if the institution has a strong lending record. OTS solicits comment. Should it adopt the intermediate small bank test or continue to examine savings associations with up to $1 billion in assets under the small institution performance standards? Do the benefits of greater uniformity and any other benefits associated with adopting the intermediate small bank test outweigh any potential disadvantages? If OTS adopts the intermediate small bank test, what sunset period, if any, should OTS provide for savings associations that have already begun adjusting their CRA-related programs in anticipation of being examined under the small institution performance standards on their next examination? Is there a need to clarify any aspects of the intermediate small bank test and, if so, how? 3. Indexing Asset Thresholds OTS has not previously proposed to index the relevant asset thresholds for purposes of determining whether an institution is small or large. In contrast, the three agencies' final rule provides that they annually adjust the asset thresholds for small and intermediate small banks based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Therefore, to ensure consistency in the standards for evaluating small and intermediate savings associations, OTS is proposing to index the asset threshold consistent with the approach adopted by the other Federal banking agencies. As the three agencies explained in the preamble to their March 11, 2005 proposed rule (70 FR at 12151), there is precedent for indexing asset thresholds to the CPI. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. 2801 *et seq.* , institutions under a certain asset threshold are exempt from HMDA requirements, with the threshold adjusted annually to the CPI and rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 million. 12 U.S.C. 2808. OTS solicits comment. Should it adopt the same indexing for the asset size for small and intermediate small savings associations as the other three agencies or should it not index? Do the benefits of greater uniformity and any other benefits associated with adopting the same indexing outweigh any potential disadvantages? 4. Discriminatory or Other Illegal Credit Practices The preamble to OTS's August 2004 final rule explained why OTS was withdrawing one part of its portion of the February 2004 joint proposed rule. The withdrawn language would have added regulatory text providing that evidence that an institution or affiliate engages in discriminatory, illegal, or abusive credit practices would adversely affect the evaluation of the institution's CRA performance. Opposition came from financial institutions and consumer groups. OTS indicated that it would continue to rely on the more general provision in its rule that evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices adversely affects the performance evaluation as interpreted in interagency Q&A 28(c)-1, 66 FR at 36640. The language adopted by the other three agencies in their August 2005 final rule stated that with respect to discrimination in affiliate lending, the three agencies would reduce a rating based on discrimination in an affiliate's loans made inside the institution's assessment area where the loans have been considered as part of the institution's lending performance. The three agencies explained in the preamble to their August 2, 2005 final rule (70 FR at 44263) that a bank may not elect to include as part of its CRA evaluation affiliate loans outside the bank's assessment area. OTS is proposing to amend its CRA rule to reflect this approach. OTS solicits comment. Should it adopt the same language on discriminatory or other illegal credit practices or adopt no new language? Do the benefits of greater uniformity and any other benefits associated with adopting the same approach to discriminatory or other illegal credit practices outweigh any potential disadvantages? Regulatory Analysis Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OTS may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. This collection of information is currently approved under OMB Control Number 1550-0012. This proposal would not change the collection of information. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OTS certifies that the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the provisions would impose any additional paperwork or regulatory reporting requirements. Eliminating the option of alternative weights would only affect savings associations with assets of $1 billion or more. Imposing a community development test for intermediate small savings associations would only affect savings associations with assets of $250 million up to $1 billion. Likewise, indexing the asset thresholds would only affect savings associations with assets around $250 million or more. In contrast, the Small Business Administration
(SBA)has defined “small entities” for banking purposes as those with assets of $165 million or less. 13 CFR 121.201. Incorporating language into the rule regarding discriminatory or illegal credit practices has no impact whatsoever. It does not change the laws or regulations applicable to savings associations that prohibit discriminatory or illegal conduct. It simply affects the way OTS considers noncompliance with these laws and regulations as part of the CRA performance evaluation. Executive Order 12866 Determination OTS has determined that this proposal is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. OTS has determined that this rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Accordingly, OTS has not prepared a budgetary impact statement nor specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 563e Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations. Office Of Thrift Supervision 12 CFR Chapter V For the reasons outlined in the preamble, the Office of Thrift Supervision proposes to amend part 563e of chapter V of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 563e—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 1. The authority citation for part 563e continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), and 2901 through 2907. 2. In § 563e.12 revise paragraph (u), to read as follows: § 563e.12 Definitions.
(u)*Small savings associations* —(1) *Definition. Small savings association* means a savings association that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1 billion. *Intermediate small savings association* means a small savings association with assets of at least $250 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years and less than $1 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years.
(2)*Adjustment.* The dollar figures in paragraph (u)(1) of this section shall be adjusted annually and published by the OTS, based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each twelve-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million. 3. Amend § 563e.21(a)(1) by removing “, and to the extent consistent with § 563e.28(d)”. 4. Revise § 563e.26 to read as follows: § 563e.26 Small savings association performance standards.
(a)*Performance criteria* —(1) *Small savings associations with assets of less than $250 million.* The OTS evaluates the record of a small savings association that is not, or that was not during the prior calendar year, an intermediate small savings association, of helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s) pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(2)*Intermediate small savings associations.* The OTS evaluates the record of a small savings association that is, or that was during the prior calendar year, an intermediate small savings association, of helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s) pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section.
(b)*Lending test.* A small savings association's lending performance is evaluated pursuant to the following criteria:
(1)The savings association's loan-to-deposit ratio, adjusted for seasonal variation, and, as appropriate, other lending-related activities, such as loan originations for sale to the secondary markets, community development loans, or qualified investments;
(2)The percentage of loans and, as appropriate, other lending-related activities located in the savings association's assessment area(s);
(3)The savings association's record of lending to and, as appropriate, engaging in other lending-related activities for borrowers of different income levels and businesses and farms of different sizes;
(4)The geographic distribution of the savings association's loans; and
(5)The savings association's record of taking action, if warranted, in response to written complaints about its performance in helping to meet credit needs in its assessment area(s).
(c)*Community development test.* An intermediate small savings association's community development performance also is evaluated pursuant to the following criteria:
(1)The number and amount of community development loans;
(2)The number and amount of qualified investments;
(3)The extent to which the savings association provides community development services; and
(4)The savings association's responsiveness through such activities to community development lending, investment, and services needs.
(d)*Small savings association performance rating.* The OTS rates the performance of a savings association evaluated under this section as provided in Appendix A of this part. 5. Amend § 563e.28 by: a. Removing “paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d)of this section” in paragraph
(a)and by adding in lieu thereof “paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section”; b. Removing paragraph (d); c. Revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 563e.28 Assigned ratings.
(c)*Effect of evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices.*
(1)The OTS's evaluation of a savings association's CRA performance is adversely affected by evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices in any geography by the savings association or any affiliate whose loans have been considered as part of the savings association's lending performance. In connection with any type of lending activity described in § 563e.22(a), evidence of discriminatory or other credit practices that violate an applicable law, rule, or regulation includes, but is not limited to:
(i)Discrimination against applicants on a prohibited basis in violation, for example, of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or the Fair Housing Act;
(ii)Violations of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act;
(iii)Violations of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act;
(iv)Violations of section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and
(v)Violations of the Truth in Lending Act provisions regarding a consumer's right of rescission.
(2)In determining the effect of evidence of practices described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section on the savings association's assigned rating, the OTS considers the nature, extent, and strength of the evidence of the practices; the policies and procedures that the savings association (or affiliate, as applicable) has in place to prevent the practices; any corrective action that the savings association (or affiliate, as applicable) has taken or has committed to take, including voluntary corrective action resulting from self-assessment; and any other relevant information. 5. In Appendix A to part 563e, revise paragraph
(d)to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 563e—Ratings
(d)*Savings associations evaluated under the small savings association performance standards* —(1) *Lending test ratings* —(i) *Eligibility for a satisfactory lending test rating.* The OTS rates a small savings association's lending performance “satisfactory” if, in general, the savings association demonstrates:
(A)A reasonable loan-to-deposit ratio (considering seasonal variations) given the savings association's size, financial condition, the credit needs of its assessment area(s), and taking into account, as appropriate, other lending-related activities such as loan originations for sale to the secondary markets and community development loans and qualified investments;
(B)A majority of its loans and, as appropriate, other lending-related activities, are in its assessment area;
(C)A distribution of loans to and, as appropriate, other lending-related activities for individuals of different income levels (including low- and moderate-income individuals) and businesses and farms of different sizes that is reasonable given the demographics of the savings association's assessment area(s);
(D)A record of taking appropriate action, when warranted, in response to written complaints, if any, about the savings association's performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s); and
(E)A reasonable geographic distribution of loans given the savings association's assessment area(s).
(ii)*Eligibility for an “outstanding” lending test rating.* A small savings association that meets each of the standards for a “satisfactory” rating under this paragraph and exceeds some or all of those standards may warrant consideration for a lending test rating of “outstanding.”
(iii)*Needs to improve or substantial noncompliance ratings.* A small savings association may also receive a lending test rating of “needs to improve” or “substantial noncompliance” depending on the degree to which its performance has failed to meet the standard for a “satisfactory” rating.
(2)*Community development test ratings for intermediate small savings associations* —
(i)*Eligibility for a satisfactory community development test rating.* The OTS rates an intermediate small savings association's community development performance “satisfactory” if the savings association demonstrates adequate responsiveness to the community development needs of its assessment area(s) through community development loans, qualified investments, and community development services. The adequacy of the savings association's response will depend on its capacity for such community development activities, its assessment area's need for such community development activities, and the availability of such opportunities for community development in the savings association's assessment area(s).
(ii)*Eligibility for an outstanding community development test rating.* The OTS rates an intermediate small savings association's community development performance “outstanding” if the savings association demonstrates excellent responsiveness to community development needs in its assessment area(s) through community development loans, qualified investments, and community development services, as appropriate, considering the savings association's capacity and the need and availability of such opportunities for community development in the savings association's assessment area(s).
(iii)*Needs to improve or substantial noncompliance ratings.* An intermediate small savings association may also receive a community development test rating of “needs to improve” or “substantial noncompliance” depending on the degree to which its performance has failed to meet the standards for a “satisfactory” rating.
(3)*Overall rating* —(i) *Eligibility for a satisfactory overall rating.* No intermediate small savings association may receive an assigned overall rating of “satisfactory” unless it receives a rating of at least “satisfactory” on both the lending test and the community development test.
(ii)*Eligibility for an outstanding overall rating.*
(A)An intermediate small savings association that receives an “outstanding” rating on one test and at least “satisfactory” on the other test may receive an assigned overall rating of “outstanding.”
(B)A small savings association that is not an intermediate small savings association that meets each of the standards for a “satisfactory” rating under the lending test and exceeds some or all of those standards may warrant consideration for an overall rating of “outstanding.” In assessing whether a bank's performance is “outstanding,” the OTS considers the extent to which the savings association exceeds each of the performance standards for a “satisfactory” rating and its performance in making qualified investments and its performance in providing branches and other services and delivery systems that enhance credit availability in its assessment area(s).
(iii)*Needs to improve or substantial noncompliance overall ratings.* A small savings association may also receive a rating of “needs to improve” or “substantial noncompliance” depending on the degree to which its performance has failed to meet the standards for a “satisfactory” rating. Dated: November 20, 2006. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John M. Reich, Director. [FR Doc. E6-19915 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6720-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156; FRL-8246-7] RIN 2060-AN95 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration Units AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; technical correction. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a technical correction to the emission guidelines and new source performance standards
(NSPS)for other solid waste incineration
(OSWI)units. We are correcting the averaging time for measuring opacity. DATES: *Comments.* Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2006. *Public Hearing.* If anyone contacts EPA by December 14, 2006 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on or about December 26, 2006. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Dorothy Apple at
(919)541-4487 to verify that a hearing will be held. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail:* Send your comments via electronic mail to *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov* , Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156. *Mail:* Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156. *Hand Delivery:* Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156. Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulation.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Martha Smith, Natural Resources and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919)541-2421; e-mail: *smith.martha@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is making this technical correction in a direct final rule, without prior proposal, because EPA views this correction as non-controversial and does not anticipate adverse comments. EPA has explained its reasons for this technical correction in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no significant adverse comments, we will take no further action. If an adverse comment applies to this technical correction, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** . I. General Information A. Does the proposed technical correction apply to me? *Regulated Entities.* Categories and entities potentially regulated by the proposed rule are very small municipal waste combustion (VSMWC) units and institutional waste incineration
(IWI)units. The final OSWI emission guidelines and NSPS potentially affect the following categories of sources: Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities Any State, local, or Tribal government using a VSMWC unit as defined in the regulations 562213, 92411 Solid waste combustion units burning municipal waste collected from the general public and from residential, commercial, institutional and industrial sources. Institutions using an IWI unit as defined in the regulations 922, 6111, 623, 7121 Correctional institutions, primary and secondary schools, camps and national parks. Any Federal government agency using an OSWI unit as defined in the regulations 928 Department of Defense (labs, military bases, munition facilities). Any college or university using an OSWI unit as defined in the regulations 6113, 6112 Universities, colleges and community colleges. Any church or convent using an OSWI unit as defined in the regulations 8131 Churches and convents. Any civic or religious organization using an OSWI unit as defined in the regulations 8134 Civic associations and fraternal associations. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.2885 through 60.2888 of subpart EEEE, and in the emission guidelines for existing sources located at 40 CFR 60.2991 through 60.2994 of subpart FFFF. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Action? For a complete discussion of all the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other stature unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small government organizations, and small government jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as follows:
(1)A small business in the regulated industry that has a gross annual revenue less than $6 million (this varies by industry category, ranging up to $10.5 million for North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 562213 (VSMWC)), based on Small Business Administration's size standards;
(2)A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or
(3)A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action does not propose any changes to the final OSWI rule, in which we determined that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For additional information, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 17, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-19862 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0570; FRL-8247-1] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Bernalillo County, NM AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of the section 111(d) Plan submitted by City of Albuquerque (Bernalillo County), New Mexico, on May 24, 2006, to implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines
(EG)for existing Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW)Landfills. The EG require delegated municipalities to develop plans to reduce landfill gas emissions from all MSWs. Finally, this action also proposes to approve the concomitant delegation of authority to implement 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 at
(214)665-7259, or *boyce.kenneth@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: November 9, 2006. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-19860 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-D-7678] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs 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: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. 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. *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.* 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. *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 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This 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: City of New York, New York State City/town/county Source of flooding Location #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)Existing Modified New York New York
(City)Amboy Road Wetland (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *50 Arbutus Creek (Staten Island) Approximately 530 feet upstream of Hylan Boulevard *15 *16 Approximately 980 feet upstream of Amboy Road None *57 Blue Heron Main Branch (Staten Island) Approximately 100 feet upstream of Hylan Boulevard *10 *17 Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Tallman Street None *70 Blue Heron Tributary (Staten Island) At the confluence with Blue Heron Main Branch None *36 Approximately 35 feet upstream of Holbridge Avenue None *70 Bronx River (Bronx) Approximately 600 feet upstream of Tremont Street *14 *15 Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of East 24th Street *73 *74 Butler Manor (Staten Island) Approximately 75 feet upstream of the confluence with Raritan Bay *12 *10 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Raritan Bay None *33 Cleveland Avenue Wetland (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *58 Colon Tributary (Staten Island) At the confluence with Sweet Brook *14 *15 Approximately 145 feet upstream of Pemberton Avenue *44 *41 D Street Brook (Staten Island) At D Street None *97 Approximately 1,530 feet upstream of D Street None *155 Denise Tributary (Staten Island) Approximately 260 feet upstream of the confluence of Arbutus Creek *17 *18 Approximately 1,205 feet upstream of Jansen Street *48 *49 Eibs Pond (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *87 Eltingville Tributary (Staten Island) At the confluence with Sweet Brook *39 *38 Approximately 406 feet upstream of Ratan Avenue None *45 Foresthill Road Brook (Staten Island) Approximately 1,450 feet downstream of Foresthill Road None *5 Approximately 3,070 feet upstream of Alaska place None *74 Hillside Avenue Wetland (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *56 Jacks Pond (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *52 Jansen Tributary (Staten Island) Approximately 330 feet upstream of confluence with Arbutus Creek *26 *25 Approximately 1,340 feet upstream of confluence with Arbutus Creek *37 *41 Lemon Creek (Staten Island) Approximately 40 feet upstream of Staten Island Rapid Transit Bridge *10 *17 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Rossville Avenue *102 *101 Mill Creek (Staten Island) Approximately 80 feet downstream of Richmond Valley Road *10 *11 Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of West Veterans Road None *77 Mill Creek Tributary 1 (Staten Island) At the confluence with Mill Creek None *41 Approximately 230 feet from the downstream side of the West Shore Expressway None *60 Mill Creek Tributary 2 (Staten Island) At the confluence with Mill Creek None *10 At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary 3 None *13 Mill Creek Tributary 3 (Staten Island) At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary 2 None *13 Approximately 860 feet upstream of confluence with Mill Creek Tributary 2 None *22 Richmond Creek (Staten Island) Approximately 510 feet downstream of Richmond Hill Road None *6 Approximately 0.86 mile upstream of Rockland Avenue None *254 Sandy Brook (Staten Island) Approximately 190 feet upstream of Richmond Parkway *42 *39 Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Bloomingdale Road *85 *84 Stump Pond (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *271 Sweet Brook (Staten Island) Approximately 3,200 feet downstream of Genesee Avenue *14 *12 Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Richmond Avenue/Drumgoogle Avenue *95 *99 Wolfes Pond (Staten Island) Approximately 1,175 feet upstream of Seguine Avenue *12 *10 Approximately 175 feet upstream of Hylan Boulevard None *21 Wood Duck Pond (Staten Island) Entire shoreline within the community None *54 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at the New York City Planning Department, Waterfront and Open Space Division, 22 Reade Street, Room 6E, New York, New York. Send comments to The Honorable Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of the City of New York, New York City Hall, 52 Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 13, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-19829 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7473] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs 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: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. 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. *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.* 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. *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 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This 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 #Depth in feet aboveground *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)Existing Modified City of Cabot, Arkansas Arkansas City of Cabot Bayou Two Prairie Tributary Approximately 150 feet upstream from the intersection with West Main Street None +288 Intersection of Deer Creek Road None +299 Arkansas City of Cabot Hudson Branch Upstream face of Highway 367 None +272 Approximately 850 feet upstream from the intersection with Mockingbird Lane None +287 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at 114 South 1st Street, Cabot, Arkansas 72023. Send comments to The Honorable Mickey Spunbaugh, Mayor, City of Cabot, 101 North 2nd Street, Cabot, AR 72023. Unincorporated Areas of Lonoke County, Arkansas Arkansas Unincorporated Areas of Lonoke County Hudson Branch Creek Tributary Confluence with Hudson Branch Creek None +260 Approximately 700 feet upstream from the intersection with Main Street None +314 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at 200 North Center Street, Lonoke, AR 72007. Send comments to The Honorable Charlie Troutman, Judge, Lonoke County, 301 North Center Street, Suite 201, Lonoke, AR 72086. City of Ward, Arkansas Arkansas City of Ward Cypress Bayou Tributary 11 Confluence with Morrison Street None +225 Approximately 50 feet upstream from the intersection with Brewer Street None +234 Arkansas City of Ward Cypress Bayou Tributary 11.1 Confluence with Cypress Bayou 11 None +227 Intersection with Cross Street None +241 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at 405 Hickory Street, Ward, Arkansas 72126. Send comments to The Honorable Art Brooke, Mayor, City of Ward, P.O. Box 237, Ward, AR 72176. City of Eureka, Utah Utah City of Eureka Eureka Gulch Approximately 0.30 miles downstream of Church Street +6,305 +6,306 Approximately 830 feet upstream of Church Street +6,395 +6,396 Utah City of Eureka Eureka Gulch Approximately 490 feet upstream of Spring Street +6,529 +6,528 Approximately 425 feet upstream of Bulk Plant Road None +6,569 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Eureka Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 15 North Church Street, Eureka, Utah. Send comments to: Honorable Lloyd Conder, Mayor, City of Eureka, P.O. Box 156, Eureka, Utah 84626. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground 1 Effective Modified Communities affected Walker County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Andrews Street Tributary At confluence with Tributary to Chattanooga Creek +691 +690 City of Rossville. Approximately 35 feet upstream of confluence with Tributary to Chattanooga Creek +691 +690 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. 1 The existing elevation data included on the effective FIRM is printed in the elevation datum of the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). In order to convert this printed elevation data from the NGVD29 datum to the NAVD88 datum, please add 0.02. ADDRESSES City of Rossville, Walker County, Georgia Maps are available for inspection at Rossville City Government, 220 Ellis Road, Rossville, Georgia 30741. Send comments to The Honorable John Baker, Mayor, City of Rossville, P.O. Box 159, Rossville, Georgia 30741. McClain County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas Beaver Creek Confluence with Walnut Creek *1038 +1042 City of Purcell. Purcell Lake None +1049 Crooked Bridge Creek Approximately 2000 feet downstream of the intersection with State Route 74 None +1102 Town of Goldsby. Approximately 2800 feet upstream from the intersection with State Route 746 None +1198 Walnut Creek Approximately 100 feet upstream from intersection with Interstate Highway 35 *1047 +1045 City of Purcell, McClain County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3000 feet upstream from the intersection with W. Adams Street *1051 +1049 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Purcell Maps are available for inspection at 230 W. Main, Purcell, OK 73080. Send comments to The Honorable Betty Gerhard, Mayor, City of Purcell, 230 W. Main, Purcell, OK 73080. Town of Goldsby Maps are available for inspection at 100 E. Center Rd., Goldsby, OK 73093. Send comments to The Honorable Glenn Berglan, Mayor, Town of Goldsby, 100 E. Center Rd., Goldsby, OK 73093. Unincorporated Areas of McClain County Maps are available for inspection at 121 N. 2nd, Purcell, OK 73080. Send comments to Charles Foster, Chairman, McClain County, 121 N. 2nd, Purcell, OK 73080. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Montour County, Pennsylvania, and Incorporated Areas Mahoning Creek Approximately 7345 feet downstream of Northumberland Street *459 +460 Borough of Danville, Township of Mahoning. Approximately 1310 feet upstream of Northumberland Street *460 +461 Roaring Creek Approximately 1310 feet downstream of River Drive *467 +470 Township of Mayberry. Approximately 980 feet upstream of River Drive *467 +470 Sechler Run Approximately 215 feet downstream of Rooney Avenue Bridge *459 +461 Borough of Danville. Approximately at 1210 feet upstream of Railroad Street *460 +461 Susquehanna River Approximately at 9500 feet downstream of Factory Street, at the Montour County Line *458 +459 Township of Mayberry, Borough of Danville, Township of Cooper, Township of Mahoning. Approximately 6.4 miles upstream of Factory Street, at the Montour County Line *467 +471 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Borough of Danville Maps are available for inspection at 239 Mill Street, Danville, PA 17821. Send comments to The Honorable Ed Coleman, Mayor, Danville Borough, 239 Mill Street, Danville, PA 17821. Township of Cooper Maps are available for inspection at 19 Steltz Road, Danville, PA. Send comments to Mr. Terry L. Heimbach, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 216 Reinaker Road, Danville, PA 17821. Township of Mahoning Maps are available for inspection at 1101 Bloom Road, Danville, PA 17821. Send comments to Ms. Christine A. Delong, Chairperson of Board of Supervisors, 1101 Bloom Road, Danville, PA 17821. Township of Mayberry Maps are available for inspection at 53 Sunset Road, Catawissa, PA 17820. Send comments to Mr. David E. Bird, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 68 W Onderview Road, Catawissa, PA 17820. Snyder County, Pennsylvania, and Incorporated Areas Middle Creek Approximately 550 feet upstream of Middle Creek Road *433 +433 Township of Union, Township of Penn. Approximately 750 feet downstream of Legislative Route 229 *433 +433 Penns Creek Approximately at Penns Creeks confluence with the Susquehanna River *430 +431 Borough of Selinsgrove, Township of Penn, Township of Union. Approximately 3250 feet downstream of Gravel Pit Road *439 +439 Penns Creek Approximately 7000 feet downstream of Legislative Route 509 None +452 Approximately 7200 feet upstream of Legislative Route 509 None +466 Silver Creek Approximately 780 feet downstream of U.S. Routes 11 & 15 *422 +420 Township of Union. Approximately 980 feet upstream of U.S. Routes 11 & 15 *422 +421 South Tributary Approximately 420 feet downstream of Market Street *433 +435 Township of Penn, Borough of Selinsgrove. Just upstream of West Sandhill Road *433 +435 Susquehanna River Approximately at the Juniata & Snyder County boundary *409 +405 Township of Penn, Borough of Selinsgrove, Borough of Shamokin Dam, Township of Chapman, Township of Monroe, Township of Union. Approximately at Route 11 at the boundary of Snyder & Union Counties *448 +448 West Mahantango Creek Approximately at West Mahantango Creeks Confluence with Susquehanna River *409 +405 Township of Chapman. Approximately 175 feet downstream of Old Trail Road *409 +405 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Borough of Selinsgrove Maps are available for inspection at 1 North High Street, Selinsgrove, PA 17870. Send comments to The Honorable Dianne K. Mengel, President of Borough Council, 1 North High Street, Selinsgrove, PA 17870. Borough of Shamokin Dam Maps are available for inspection at 144 West Eighth Ave, Shamokin Dam, PA 17876. Send comments to The Honorable G. Robert Herbert, President of Borough Council, 126 Snyder Street, Shamokin Dam, PA 17876. Township of Chapman Maps are available for inspection at 1151 Wagner Hill Road, Port Trevorton, PA 17864. Send comments to Mr. Foster S. Straub, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 2550 Hoffer Road, Port Trevorton, PA 17864. Township of Jackson Maps are available for inspection at 57 Municipal Road, Winfield, PA 17889. Send comments to Mr. Shawn N. Ressler, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 57 Municipal Road, Winfield, PA 17889. Township of Monroe Maps are available for inspection at 39 Municipal Drive, Selinsgrove, PA 17870. Send comments to Mr. Timothy Wolfe, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 39 Municipal Drive, Selinsgrove, PA 17870. Township of Penn Maps are available for inspection at 12 Clifford Road, Selinsgrove, PA 17870. Send comments to Mr. Frederick Ulrich, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 12 Clifford Road, Selinsgrove, PA 17870 Township of Union Maps are available for inspection at 1510 McNess Road, Port Trevorton, PA 17864. Send comments to Mr. George T. Markley, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, 1510 McNess Road, Port Trevorton, PA 17864. Brown County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas 4th Street Drainageway Approximately 400 feet downstream of Sixth Street +1,297 +1,295 City of Groton. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Sixth Street +1,302 +1,296 Approximately 300 feet upstream of 13th Avenue/Highway 12 +1,303 +1,302 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Groton Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 204 North Main Street, Groton, South Dakota 57445. Send comments to the Honorable Gerald Rix, Mayor, City of Groton, 209 North Main Street, Groton, South Dakota 57445. Campbell County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Big Creek Approximately 70 feet downstream of High Knob Road None +1032 Unincorporated Areas of Campbell County. At the confluence with Casper Sharp Branch None +1032 Clear Fork Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence of Rose Creek None +1084 Unincorporated Areas of Campbell County. Approximately 2,050 feet upstream of the confluence of Rose Creek None +1086 Dog Creek Just downstream of Elkins Road None +1032 Unincorporated Areas of Campbell County,Town of Caryville,Town of Jacksboro. Approximately 1,690 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 25 None +1075 Dog Creek Tributary At the confluence with Dog Creek *1061 +1060 Town of Jacksboro. Just downstream of Eagle Bluff Road None +1090 Elk Creek Approximately 800 feet upstream of railroad bridge None +972 Unincorporated Areas of Campbell County. Approximately 1,730 feet downstream of the confluence of Burnt Pone Creek None +975 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Caryville Maps are available for inspection at 4839 Old Highway 63, Caryville, TN 37717. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Stooksbury, Mayor, P. O. Box 308, Caryville, TN 37717-0308. Town of Jacksboro Maps are available for inspection at 585 Main Street, Jacksboro, TN 37757. Send comments to The Honorable Jack Cannon, Mayor, P. O. Box 75, Jacksboro, TN 37757-0075. Unincorporated Areas of Campbell County Maps are available for inspection at County Courthouse, 195 Kentucky Street, Jacksboro, TN 37757. Send comments to The Honorable Jerry Cross, Mayor, P. O. Box 435, Jacksboro, TN 37757. Giles County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Branch Creek At the confluence with Robertson Fork Creek None +738 Unincorporated Areas of Giles County, City of Lynnville. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Industrial Park Road None +762 Branch Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Branch Creek None +748 City of Lynnville. Approximately 870 feet upstream of Mill Street None +763 Elk River Approximately 2,800 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 31 None +607 City of Elkton. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Interstate Highway 65 None +608 Robertson Fork Creek Approximately 1.3 miles downstream of the confluence with Lynn Creek *715 +715 Unincorporated Areas of Giles County, City of Lynnville. Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence with Branch Creek None +739 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Elkton Maps are available for inspection at Elkton City Hall, 110 Main Street, Elkton, TN 38455. Send comments to The Honorable Bill Ware, Mayor, P. O. Box 157, Elkton, TN 38455-0157. City of Lynnville Maps are available for inspection at Lynnville City Hall, 101 Mill Street, Lynnville, TN 38472. Send comments to The Honorable Troy C. Hood, Mayor, 151 Mill Street, Lynnville, TN 38472. Unincorporated Areas of Giles County Maps are available for inspection at County Courthouse, Pulaski, TN 38478. Send comments to The Honorable Janet Vanzant, Mayor, P. O. Box 678, Pulaski, TN 38478-0678. Hardeman County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Spring Creek Just upstream of U.S. Highway 64 None +352 City of Bolivar. Approximately 500 feet upstream of State Highway 125 None +360 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Bolivar Maps are available for inspection at County Tax Assessors Office, 106 Warren Street, Bolivar, TN 38008. Send comments to The Honorable Bobby Sain, Mayor, 211 North Washington Street, Bolivar, TN 38008. Henry County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Bailey Fork Creek Tributary 2 At Lone Oak Road *390 +390 City of Paris. Approximately 280 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 641 None +450 Clifty Creek Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of State Highway 77 *422 +422 Henry County. Approximately 1,940 feet upstream of State Highway 218 Bypass None +452 Greenbriar Creek At the confluence with Barnes Fork None +377 Henry County. Approximately 1,480 feet upstream of Hobby Road None +407 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Paris Maps are available for inspection at 100 North Caldwell Avenue, Paris, TN 38242. Send comments to The Honorable David Travis, Mayor, P.O. Box 970, Paris, TN 38242-0970. Henry County: Maps are available for inspection at Henry County Courthouse, 213 West Washington Street, Paris, TN 38242. Send comments to The Honorable Brent Greer, Mayor, P.O. Box 7, Paris, TN 38242-0007. Lauderdale County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Cane Creek 2 At the confluence with Cane Creek *339 +339 Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County. Approximately 6,600 feet upstream of Dam Site 14A None +369 Hyde Creek At the confluence with Cane Creek *318 +318 Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County, Town of Ripley. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Parrish Road None +379 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Ripley Maps are available for inspection at Ripley Town Hall, 110 South Washington Street, Ripley, TN 38063. Send comments to The Honorable Jon Pavletic, Mayor, 110 South Washington Street, Ripley, TN 38063. Unincorporated Areas of Lauderdale County Maps are available for inspection at County Courthouse, 100 Court Square, Ripley, TN. Send comments to The Honorable Rod Schuh, Mayor, County Courthouse, 100 Court Square, Ripley, TN 38063. Roanoke County, Virginia, and Incorporated Areas Back Creek Tributary A Approximately 2330 feet downstream of U.S. Road 220 *960 +960 Unincorporated Areas of Roanoke County. Approximately 2945 feet downstream of U.S. Road 220 *960 +960 Bradshaw Creek Approximately 5490 feet downstream of Bradshaw Road at the County Line None +1383 Unincorporated Areas of Roanoke County. Approximately 6740 feet upstream of Hidden Cove Road None +1850 Mason Creek Approximately at Bendemeer Road None +1274 Unincorporated Areas of Roanoke County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Bradshaw Road None +1586 Snyder Branch Approximately 100 feet downstream of South Market Street *960 +960 City of Salem. Approximately 2330 feet downstream of U.S. Road 220 *960 +960 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Salem Maps are available for inspection at 114 North Broad St., Salem, VA 24018. Send comments to Mr. Forest Jones, City Manager, 114 North Broad St., Salem, VA 24018. Unincorporated Areas of Roanoke County Maps are available for inspection at 5204 Bernard Drive SW., Roanoke, VA 24018. Send comments to The Honorable Michael Wray, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 29800, Roanoke, VA 24018. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 13, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-19828 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Definition of “Motorcycle”; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking from GG Quad North America requesting that NHTSA redefine the term “motorcycle” so that the vehicle it seeks to import and sell, a four-wheeled vehicle with a motorcycle-like body, would be classified as a motorcycle and thus be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for motorcycles. Currently, the petitioner's vehicle is classified as a passenger car. Since the initial FMVSSs were issued in 1967, the term “motorcycle” has been defined to exclude motor vehicles designed to travel on four wheels in contact with the ground. NHTSA is denying the petition because the petitioner has not shown that redefining “motorcycle” to include the petitioner's vehicle would be consistent with the safety purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Denial of the petition means that the petitioner's vehicle will remain classified as a passenger car. Before it can be imported, offered for sale or sold in the United States, it must meet all FMVSSs applicable to that type of motor vehicle. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Gayle Dalrymple of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at 202-366-5559. For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petition for Rulemaking Today's document responds to a May 19, 2006 petition for rulemaking from GG Quad North America (GG Quad), which wishes to import and sell the “Quad” in the United States. The Quad is a motor vehicle manufactured in Switzerland by Gru ter & Gut Motorradtechnik GmbH. The petitioner describes the Quad as being in every respect a motorcycle other than its fourth wheel. “The Quad is equipped with a BMW-motorcycle power plant.” It uses “motorcycle controls such as: foot-operated gear shifter, handlebar-mounted clutch, separately-operated front and rear brake systems, handle bars, saddles for the operator and tandem passenger, and the open operating environment associated with motorcycling.” The petitioner's Web site states that the top speed is 115 plus miles per hour. *http://www.gg-quad-northamerica.com/SpecificationsAndOptions.htm.* The petitioner states that the Quad meets all FMVSSs for motorcycles. However, since the Quad has four wheels, the petitioner notes that it “falls outside the current NHTSA definition of a motorcycle.” According to the petitioner's Web site, the Quad is authorized for on-road use in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Dubai. *http://www.gg-quad-northamerica.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm.* 1 The petitioner's Web site further indicates that the Quad has been in production since 2004 and that there are a total of 200 Quads in those four countries. *http://www.gg-quad- northamerica.com/index.htm.* 1 According to its manufacturer's Web site, the Quad is authorized in Germany and Switzerland. *http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/frameset.html.* The petitioner requests that the current definition in 49 CFR 571.3(a) of “motorcycle,” a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. be revised to read as follows: a motor vehicle with motive power, other than a low-speed vehicle, having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on two, three or four wheels in contact with the ground provided that its curb weight is less than 1,000 pounds. 2 2 NHTSA defines the term “low speed vehicle” as follows: *Low-speed vehicle (LSV)* means a motor vehicle,
(1)That is 4-wheeled,
(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, and
(3)Whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). 49 CFR 571.3(a). In the event that its petition is denied, the petitioner asked for guidance as to how it “may import and sell the Quad in the United States under the laws that it administers.” In support of its petition, the petitioner makes four principal arguments. First, the petitioner argues that the configuration of the Quad “makes it unreasonable, impracticable, and inappropriate for it to comply with the FMVSS that apply to passenger cars.” Second, the petitioner argues that the Quad is safer than any two-wheeled motorcycle because it is more stable (due to its low center of gravity and a wide track), has better stopping ability (due to its four-wheel disc brakes) and has quick response to steering input. Third, the petitioner argues that the Quad is safer than a three-wheeled motorcycle and offers the following reasons for that belief: • The petitioner states that the center of gravity of most sidecar and three-wheeled motorcycle configurations is much higher than that of the Quad. The Quad's lower center of gravity provides improved stability and safety. • The petitioner says that the center of gravity for a motorcycle with sidecar is located at a point between the axis of the two motorcycle wheels and the intersecting axis at 90 degrees of the sidecar wheel. The center of gravity point is not in line with the thrust line and “causes adverse yaw when accelerating the sidecar vehicle.” In contrast, according to the petitioner, the Quad lines up the center of gravity and thrust line by design, avoiding adverse yaw under acceleration and deceleration. • The petitioner states that most three-wheeled motorcycles use the “telescopic fork front suspension” of the base two-wheeled motorcycle. The petitioner asserts “[f]ront fork suspension does not respond well to input from bumps when loaded from the side” and that a side loading condition occurs when turning and causes binding in the sliding tubes. The petitioner states that the Quad overcomes such side load limitations by “using double, unequal length, a-arms or wishbone suspension with coil-over shocks in a fully four-wheel independent arrangement.” • The petitioner asserts that there are three-wheeled motorcycles designed with controls similar to those on passenger cars, such as a foot throttle, foot-operated brakes and clutch, steering wheel, and hand gear changer. The petitioner argues that its vehicle operates like a traditional motorcycle. • Finally, the petitioner says that many sidecars and three-wheeled motorcycles use motorcycle tires, which are “designed for leaning into a turn and keeping a constant sized rubber contact patch on the road while maneuvering a motorcycle.” According to the petitioner, since three-wheeled motorcycles and sidecars do not lean or bank, using “traditional motorcycle tires” on them limits available traction for three-wheeled motorcycles. The petitioner asserts: “The Quad is designed to use low profile, flat tread, DOT-certified tires. 3 A wider tire keeps a large footprint in contact with the road, maximizing traction during all conditions of operation.” 3 Unlike the practice in many countries, in the U.S., the Federal government does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The responsibility for certifying that motorcycle tires meet applicable motorcycle tire safety standards is on the motorcycle tire manufacturer, and motorcycle manufacturer. Fourth, the petitioner argues that redefining “motorcycle” as it requests is in the public interest and offers three reasons for that belief. • The Quad can help reduce traffic congestion since it can be operated, as a motorcycle, in high occupancy vehicle or carpool lanes in most jurisdictions. • “Americans with disabilities” will be able to operate the Quad. The petitioner noted that drivers with leg disabilities are unable to operate a two-wheeled motorcycle because they cannot hold it upright at a stop. However, the Quad “has a provision of control modification” so that persons who cannot use foot controls can operate the Quad using hand controls. The petitioner also expressed the view that the Quad will “appeal to senior citizens in retirement communities, or to those who no longer feel confident in operating a two-wheeled motorcycle but enjoy the open environment that the Quad offers.” • The petitioner stated that the Quad provides environmental benefits, noting that the “fuel mileage is generally 35 mpg.” Agency Decision The agency has carefully considered this petition for rulemaking to redefine “motorcycle” to accommodate its product and denies it for the reasons set forth below. Statutory Background The purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is “to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.” 49 U.S.C. Section 30101. Given that purpose, Congress determined that it was necessary to “prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.” Id. Each standard is required to be “practicable,” “meet the need for motor vehicle safety,” and “be stated in objective terms.” 49 U.S.C. Section 30111(a). The Act provides further that in prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard, the Secretary shall— * * *
(3)consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and
(4)consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title. 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). Definitions and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Different Types of Motor Vehicles Pursuant to the mandate to issue FMVSSs, NHTSA has defined a variety of types of motor vehicles, including motorcycles and passenger cars, and established standards for them. NHTSA defines the term “motorcycle” as: “a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.” 49 CFR 571.3(b). This definition was established at the same time as the initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 1967, 4 and has not been amended. NHTSA defines “passenger car” as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.” 5 49 CFR 571.3(b). Thus, unlike the case of a motorcycle, whether a vehicle is a “passenger car” does not depend on the number of wheels it is designed to travel on in contact with the ground. 4 32 FR 2408, at 2409 (February 3, 1967). 5 NHTSA defines the term “low speed vehicle” as follows: *Low-speed vehicle (LSV)* means a motor vehicle,
(1)That is 4-wheeled,
(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, and
(3)Whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). 49 CFR 571.3(a). Petitioner Has Not Shown That Redefining “Motorcycle” Would Be Consistent With the Interests of Motor Vehicle Safety Since the fundamental purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is to promote vehicle safety, the agency seeks above all to promote that purpose, after due consideration of all relevant factors, in determining whether a particular action should be taken under the Act. This purpose also informs our interpretation of the Act. While the Act obligates the agency to consider whether a standard is appropriate for the types of vehicles to which it applies, the primary intended effect of that requirement is to require the agency to take care that its standards do not have the effect of eliminating existing vehicle types. It does not compel the agency to take actions to facilitate the proliferation of unusual vehicle designs, particularly those that present new, potentially significant safety risks. Thus, it is important that the agency take great care in even contemplating the possibility of revising its definitions of motor vehicle types so as to move some vehicles from the passenger car category, which is subject to a wide array of requirements for safety features and systems, to the motorcycle category, which is subject to significantly narrower array of safety requirements. From its earliest years, the agency has demonstrated concern that the combination of vehicle design trends and vehicle type definitional changes could have the effect of making some vehicles subject to less comprehensive arrays of safety requirements than those applicable to motor vehicle types like passenger cars and trucks. In the early 1970's, the agency issued a number of notices concerning the treatment of three-wheeled motorcycles and very light four-wheeled vehicles under the FMVSS. Given the steadily rising death toll among motorcyclists, it is particularly important for the agency to exercise great caution in taking any action that would create a new variety of vehicles with motorcycle-like bodies. In June 2006, NHTSA issued a report, *Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes: An Update* , 6 which reported that since 1997, motorcycle rider fatalities have increased by 89 percent from 2,116 to 4,008 in 2004: “The latest 2004 data show that motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the seventh year in a row since 1997.” This report was subsequently updated on August 22, 2006, when NHTSA issued a press release 7 announcing that motorcycle fatalities rose 13 percent from 4,028 in 2004 to 4,553 in 2005, meaning that motorcycle rider fatalities have increased for the eighth year in a row since 1997. The press release provided the following additional information about motorcycle rider fatalities: 6 DOT HS 810 606 Technical Report published by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 7 NHTSA 07-06, Tuesday August 22, 2006. • In 2005, the annual number of motorcycle rider fatalities was 10.5 percent of all motor vehicle traffic crash fatalities for that year, compared to 5.0 percent in 1997. • Motorcycle rider fatalities and motorcycle registrations have both been on the rise since 1997. However, in most of these years, the rate of increase in motorcycle rider fatalities has been higher than the rate of increase in motorcycle registration (as reflected in the rate increase). • In 2005, motorcycle rider fatalities increased for every age group. The largest percentage increase was in the 50 and over age group, followed by the 20-29 and 30-39 age groups. With these considerations in mind, the agency assessed the potential impact of allowing the Quad to meet the FMVSSs for motorcycles instead of those for passenger cars. The Quad is substantially less crashworthy than conventional four wheeled vehicles, given their enclosed occupant compartment, or even convertibles. For example, the Quad has limited structure for absorbing crash energies and does not have any safety belts or inflatable protective devices. While the Quad may have some advantages over a motorcycle (of either the two or three-wheeled variety), *e.g.* , it appears to be more stable, it does not appear to be markedly more crashworthy than a conventional motorcycle. The net effect on vehicle safety of granting this petition would depend in part on the vehicle purchasing choices that Quad purchasers would have made in the absence of the availability of a Quad subject only to motorcycle FMVSSs. The petitioner suggests that as some motorcyclists age, they would switch from a motorcycle to a Quad instead of switching to a conventional vehicle like a passenger car. To the extent that granting this petition would have this result, there would be a lessening of safety. Likewise, to the extent that aging motorcyclists would purchase and operate Quads at higher speeds than they would two or three wheeled motorcycles, this too could reduce safety. Based on the foregoing, NHTSA declines to redefine its longstanding definition of “motorcycle.” As stated in the background section, NHTSA's statutory mandate is to “reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.” We see no safety benefit in encouraging more of a vehicle type with the safety record outlined above. Although petitioner asserts that its particular four-wheeled vehicle is safer alternative to two-or three-wheeled motorcycles, it nevertheless does not appear to meet any of the FMVSSs applicable to other four-wheeled vehicles, notably the passenger car standards. The agency recognizes that the number of Quads on the road is so limited that generation of meaningful crash data is not possible. Nevertheless, the agency has no data to allay its concerns described above. It does not have any data from any country where the four-wheeled vehicles are used in combined traffic with motorcycles, passenger cars, and other vehicle types as to the crash experience of four-wheeled “motorcycles” compared with the other vehicle types. We also note that a redefinition of “motorcycle” to include four-wheeled vehicles would not apply only to the petitioner's products. Such a redefinition would encourage many (particularly lower-end) vehicle manufacturers to manufacture products that do not meet passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle safety standards, but to manufacture four-wheeled “motorcycles.” Permitting such an easy means to evade the more stringent passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards would not meet the need for motor vehicle safety. Although the petitioner suggests a number of ways in which granting the petition might be in the public interest, the agency does not believe that those public interest arguments are sufficient to outweigh the agency's safety concerns. While agency has on at least one occasion adjusted its vehicle type definitions to allow a new class of vehicles (low speed vehicles) to come into being, it did so for vehicles that have very low speed capability and were expected to be operated in controlled environments, like gated communities, on roads with low posted speed limits. In addition, there were more substantial countervailing public interest arguments for permitting the LSV category than for permitting the Quad. In the final rule establishing the low speed vehicle category, the agency noted: This final rule responds to a growing public interest in using golf cars and other similar-sized, 4-wheeled vehicles to make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf courses. These passenger-carrying vehicles, although low-speed, offer a variety of advantages, including comparatively low-cost and energy-efficient mobility. Further, many of these vehicles are electric-powered. The use of these vehicles, instead of larger, gasoline-powered vehicles like passenger cars, provides quieter transportation that does not pollute the air of the communities in which they are operated. (63 FR 33194; June 17, 1998) NHTSA notes that persons with disabilities are not excluded from using motorcycles. Those who cannot use one or both of their legs currently ride three-wheeled motorcycles or two-wheeled motorcycles with a side car. The foot brake on a motorcycle can also be modified for hand use. For those who “no longer feel confident in operating a two-wheeled motorcycle but enjoy the open environment that the Quad offers,” convertible passenger cars provide a safe means of travel. For these reasons, especially given the consistent rise in motorcycle deaths since 1997, NHTSA is unwilling to take chances with the lives of American motorists, and therefore declines to permit a new permutation of a vehicle type that is already contributing to a rise in the highway death rate. Finally, the petitioner has asked that if NHTSA denies its petition, we provide advice on how it may import and sell the Quad in the United States. The denial of this petition means that before the Quad can be sold in the United States, the petitioner must ensure and certify that the Quad meets all applicable passenger car standards (See 49 CFR Part 571). In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, the petition is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: November 17, 2006. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. E6-19824 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 71 226 Friday, November 24, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices by the Intermountain Region; Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by the ranger districts, forests and regional office of the Intermountain Region to publish legal notices required under 36 CFR 215, 217, and 218. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers the Forest Service will use to publish notices of proposed actions and notices of decision. This will provide the public with constructive notice of Forest Service proposals and decisions, provide information on the procedures to comment or appeal, and establish the date that the Forest Service will use to determine if comments or appeals were timely. DATES: Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin on or after October 1, 2006. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until April 1, 2007, when another notice will be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla McLain, Regional Appeals Coordinator, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401, and phone
(801)625-5146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The administrative procedures at 36 CFR 215, 217, and 218 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 215, 217, and 218. In general, the notices will identify: The decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or appeal period. The newspapers to be used are as follows: Regional Forester, Intermountain Region Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Idaho: *Idaho Statesman.* Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Nevada: *Reno Gazette-Journal.* Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Wyoming: *Casper Star-Tribune.* Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Utah: *Salt Lake Tribune.* Regional Forester decisions that affect all National Forests in the Intermountain Region: *Salt Lake Tribune.* Ashley National Forest Ashley Forest Supervisor decisions: *Vernal Express.* District Ranger decisions for Duchesne, Roosevelt: *Uintah Basin Standard.* Flaming Gorge District Ranger for decisions affecting Wyoming: *Rocket Miner.* Flaming Gorge and Vernal District Ranger for decisions affecting Utah: *Vernal Express.* Boise National Forest Boise Forest Supervisor decisions: *Idaho Statesman.* Cascade District Ranger decisions: *Long Valley Advocate.* Emmett District Ranger decisions: *Messenger-Index.* District Ranger decisions for Idaho City and Mountain Home: *Idaho Statesman* . Lowman District Ranger decisions: *Idaho World.* Bridger-Teton National Forest Bridger-Teton Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: *Casper Star-Tribune.* Caribou-Targhee National Forest Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Caribou portion: *Idaho State Journal* . Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Targhee portion: *Post Register* . District Ranger decisions for Ashton, Dubois, Island Park, Palisades and Teton Basin: *Post Register* . District Ranger decisions for Montpelier, Soda Springs and Westside: *Idaho State Journal* . Dixie National Forest Dixie Forest Supervisor decisions: *Daily Spectrum* . District Ranger decisions for Cedar City, Escalante, Pine Valley and Powell *Daily Spectrum* . Teasdale District Ranger decisions: *Richfield Reaper* . Fishlake National Forest Fishlake Forest Supervisor and District and District decisions: *Richfield Reaper* . Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions that encompass all or portions of both the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests: *Reno Gazette-Journal* . Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Humboldt portion: *Elko Daily Free Press* . Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Toiyabe portion: *Reno Gazette-Journal* . Austin District Ranger decisions: *The Battle Mountain Bugle.* Bridgeport District Ranger decisions: *Mammoth Times.* Carson District Ranger decisions: *Reno Gazette-Journal.* Ely District Ranger decisions: *The Ely Times* . District Ranger decisions for Jarbidge, Mountain City and Ruby Mountains: *Elko Daily Free Press* . Santa Rosa District Ranger decisions: *Humboldt Sun* . Spring Mountains National Recreation Area District Ranger decisions: *Las Vegas Review Journal* . Tonopah District Ranger decisions: *Tonopah Times Bonanza-Goldfield News* . Manti-LaSal National Forest Manti-LaSal Forest Supervisor decisions: *Sun Advocate* . Ferron District Ranger decisions: *Emery County Progress* . Moab District Ranger decisions: *Times Independent* . Monticello District Ranger decisions: *San Juan Record* . Price District Ranger decisions: *Sun Advocate* . Sanpete District Ranger decisions: *Sanpete Messenger* . Payette National Forest Payette Forest Supervisor decisions: *Idaho Statesman* . Council District Ranger decisions: *Adams County Record* . District Ranger decisions for Krassel, McCall and New Meadows: *Star News* . Weiser District Ranger decisions: *Signal American* . Salmon-Challis National Forest Salmon-Challis Foret Supervisor decisions for the Salmon portion: *The Recorder-Herald* . Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Challis portion: *The Challis Messenger.* District Ranger decisions for Challis, Lost River, Middle Fork and Yankee Fork: *The Challis Messenger* . District Ranger decisions for Leadore, North Fork and Salmon/Colbalt: *The Record-Herald* . Sawtooth National Forest Sawtooth Forest Supervisor decisions: *The Times News* . District Ranger decisions for Fairfield and Minidoka: *The Times New* . Ketchum District Ranger decisions: *Idaho Mountain Express* . Sawtooth National Recreation Area: *The Challis Massenger* . Uinta National Forest Uinta Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: *The Daily Herald* . Wasatch-Cache National Forest Wasatch-Cache Forest Supervisor decisions: *Salt Lake Tribune* . District Ranger decisions for Evanston and Mountain View: *Uinta County Herald* . District Ranger decisions for Kamas and Salt Lake: *Salt Lake Tribune* . Logan District Ranger decisions: *Logan Herald Journal.* Ogden District Ranger decisions: *Standard Examiner* . Dated: November 16, 2006. Mary Wagner, Deputy Regional Forester. [FR Doc. 06-9371 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 15
Traces to 15 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
15 references not yet in our index
- 12 CFR 563
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 62
- 44 CFR 67
- 44 CFR 67.4(a)
- 44 CFR 60.3
- 44 CFR 10
- 5 USC 601-612
- 49 CFR 571
- 49 CFR 571.3(a)
- 49 CFR 571.3(b)
- 49 CFR 552
- 49 CFR 1.50
- 36 CFR 215
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking
Cite12 CFR 563
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-4
Cite40 CFR 60
Cites 30 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources