Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2309 

the transition to NG911? Should there 

be a single Federal entity to ensure 

compliance with required standards, 

coordination, implementation, and 

policies? Should there be a national 

policy established by the Commission or 

another Federal entity to ensure 

consistent regulation? What entity 

should enable and instigate the 

development and deployment of shared 

State-wide ESInets and related 

cooperative working agreements 

between Federal, State, tribal, and local 

agencies? What functions and 

responsibilities should be performed at 

the Federal, regional, State, Tribal, and 

local levels in the implementation, 

transition to, and ongoing operation of 

NG911 in areas including networks, 

NG911 functional elements, databases, 

system operation, and PSAP operation? 

What statutory or regulatory changes, if 

any, would be necessary for the 

Commission, other Federal agencies, 

States, Tribes, or localities to facilitate 

and oversee NG911? 

86. How should the FCC coordinate 

with other Federal agencies on issues 

related to the deployment of NG911, 

such as mobile health, telemedicine and 

disability access? How should the FCC 

and other Federal agencies coordinate 

with the states and Tribal governments? 

Should the FCC provide oversight to the 

states as they assume leadership roles in 

the transition to and implementation of 

NG911 systems within and between 

states? 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

87. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 47 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

B. Ex Parte Presentations 

88. The inquiry this Notice initiates 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

C. Comment Filing Procedures 

89. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

90. People with Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

VI. Ordering Clause 

91. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 4(j), 10, 218, 303(b), 303(r), 

and 403 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 160, 218, 303(b), 303(r), and 403, 

this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–565 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2011–0005] 

RIN 2127–AK06 

Consumer Information Regulations; 

Fees for Use of Traction Skid Pads 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to 

amend NHTSA’s consumer information 

regulations on uniform tire quality 

grading standards by updating the fees 

currently charged for use of the traction 

skid pads at NHTSA’s San Angelo Test 

Facility, formerly called the Uniform 

Tire Quality Grading Test Facility, in 

San Angelo, Texas and by eliminating 

fees for course monitoring tires, which 

are no longer supplied by NHTSA. This 

NPRM updates the fees in accordance 

with Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–25, which governs fees 

assessed for Government services and 

use of Government goods or resources. 

DATES: Comments to this proposal must 

be received on or before March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The August 2, 1995 final rule responded to a 

Department of Transportation Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) audit of NHTSA’s facility in San 

Angelo in which the OIG concluded that NHTSA 

was not charging a user fee for the use of the 

traction skid pads at the facility and was not 

recovering the full cost of the course monitoring 

tires that it sold at San Angelo, contrary to OMB 

Circular A–25. See 60 FR 39269. 

2While there is a public benefit in making 

available a standardized tire grading facility for 

manufacturer use, the public benefits are incidental 

to the special benefits derived by the 

manufacturers. According to Circular A–25, when 

the public obtains a benefit as a necessary 

consequence of an agency’s provision of special 

benefits to an identifiable recipient, an agency 

should seek to recover the applicable fee from the 

identifiable recipient. 

3 It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer 

to certify that its tires comply with applicable 

Federal safety standards. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9826. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program issues: Mr. George Gillespie, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–5299. 

For legal issues: Ms. Carrie Gage, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–6051. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 203 of the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 

directs the Secretary of Transportation 

to prescribe standards establishing ‘‘a 

uniform quality grading system for 

motor vehicle tires.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30123. 

Those standards are found at 49 CFR 

575.104. To aid consumers in making an 

informed choice in the purchase of 

passenger car tires, the standards 

require motor vehicle and tire 

manufacturers and tire brand owners to 

label such tires with information 

indicating their relative performance in 

the areas of treadwear, traction and 

temperature resistance. See 49 CFR 

575.104(a). 

The Uniform Tire Quality Grading 

Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104, 

state that tire traction is ‘‘evaluated on 

skid pads that are established, and 

whose severity is monitored, by the 

NHTSA both for its compliance testing 

and for that of regulated persons.’’ 49 

CFR 575.104(f)(1). As further described 

in the standards, the test pads are paved 

with asphalt and concrete surfaces that 

have specified locked wheel traction 

coefficients when evaluated in a manner 

prescribed in the standards. The traction 

skid pads are located at NHTSA’s San 

Angelo Test Facility. 49 CFR 575.104, 

App. B. In addition to this government 

test facility, traction skid pads have 

been constructed at several commercial 

facilities. 

The current fees charged for use of the 

traction skid pads at the San Angelo 

Test Facility, as well as fees charged for 

course monitoring tires, were 

established by final rule published in 

the Federal Register on August 2, 1995. 

See 60 FR 39269 (Aug. 2, 1995).1

Pursuant to Appendix D to 49 CFR 

575.104, the fees charged to 

manufacturers for use of the 

Government traction skid pads continue 

in effect until adjusted by the 

Administrator of NHTSA. 

II. Proposal 

This NPRM proposes to update, in 

accordance with Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A–25, the 

fee charged to manufacturers for use of 

the agency’s traction skid pads at the 

San Angelo Test Facility. It also 

proposes to remove provisions 

concerning the fees charged for course 

monitoring tires, as NHTSA no longer 

supplies these tires for purchase by 

manufacturers. Based on a current 

assessment using a ‘‘market price’’ 

analysis as outlined below, NHTSA 

proposes to update the fees for use of 

the facility from $34.00 an hour, 

established in 1995, to $125 an hour. As 

discussed below, NHTSA believes that 

this proposed fee reflects the current 

market price for use of traction skid 

pads. 

OMB Circular A–25 establishes 

Federal policy regarding fees assessed 

for Government services and for sale or 

use of Government goods or resources. 

The Circular expresses the general 

policy that ‘‘[a] user charge * * * will 

be assessed against each identifiable 

recipient for special benefits derived 

from Federal activities beyond those 

received by the general public.’’ 

According to the Circular, a ‘‘special 

benefit’’ accrues and a user charge is 

assessed when a Government service ‘‘is 

performed at the request of or for the 

convenience of the recipient, and is 

beyond the services regularly received 

by other members of the same industry 

or group or by the general public.’’ 

Manufacturer use of NHTSA’s testing 

facility is a special benefit because use 

of the facility is beyond the services 

regularly received by the industry or the 

general public.2 Accordingly, NHTSA 

assesses a user charge for the use of the 

traction track. 

For the purposes of assessing user 

charges, the Circular requires that, when 

the Government is acting in its capacity 

as sovereign, user charges be sufficient 

to recover the full cost to the 

Government of providing the good or 

service. When the Government is not 

acting as sovereign, however, user 

charges are to be based on market 

prices. The Government acts in its 

capacity as sovereign when it uses 

powers over which it has a monopoly. 

See e.g., U.S. v. Reyes, 87 F.3d 676, 681 

(5th Cir. 1996). The Government may 

act in a sovereign capacity, for example, 

when it is the only source of a good or 

service, such as where the Government 

issues a license. See National Park 

Service—Special Park Use Fees, B– 

307319, *6 (Aug. 23, 2007). 

The agency is not acting in its 

capacity as sovereign in making the San 

Angelo Test Facility available for 

traction testing by manufacturers. That 

facility serves primarily for NHTSA’s 

own compliance testing of 

manufacturers’ tires. As we recently 

stated with regard to the UTQGS 

regulations, manufacturers are not 

restricted to the use of the traction skid 

pads at the government facility in San 

Angelo. Rather, manufacturers may test 

their tires wherever they choose. See 75 

FR 15894, 15913 (March 30, 2010).3


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2311 

4Optical character recognition (OCR) is the 

process of converting an image of text, such as a 

scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into 

computer-editable text. 

Because NHTSA’s own compliance tests 

are conducted at the San Angelo Test 

Facility, tire manufacturers often choose 

to do so as well. 

III. Proposed Fee Update Based on 

Market Price 

Pursuant to Circular A–25, ‘‘‘Market 

price’ means the price for a good, 

resource, or service that is based on 

competition in open markets, and 

creates neither a shortage nor a surplus 

of the good, resource, or service.’’ Where 

there is substantial competitive demand 

for a good, resource, or service, the 

market price is determined by 

commercial practice, for example, by 

competitive bidding, or by reference to 

the prevailing price of the same or 

similar good, resources, or services, 

adjusted to reflect demand, level of 

service and quality of the good or 

service. 

To determine the appropriate market 

price for use of the San Angelo Test 

Facility, NHTSA surveyed several 

commercial facilities with traction skid 

pads available for public use. Prices for 

the hourly use of traction skid pads 

ranged from approximately $115 per 

hour to approximately $200 per hour. 

From its own experience, NHTSA 

believes that discounted rates may be 

available based on volume use or 

advance planning. Accordingly, NHTSA 

believes it is appropriate to take the 

availability of discounts into account in 

arriving at a determination of market 

rate. Taking a conservative approach, 

we propose to set the rate for use of the 

traction skid pads at the lower end of 

this range—$125 per hour. NHTSA 

welcomes comments regarding whether 

our proposed rate for hourly use of the 

traction skid pads at the San Angelo 

Test Facility accurately reflects the 

market price for such services. 

IV. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. The procedure for 

submitting comments is noted below. 

How do I prepare and submit written 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number at the beginning of this NPRM 

in your comments. Your primary 

comments cannot exceed 15 pages. See 

49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit 

to encourage you to write your primary 

comments in a concise fashion. 

However, you may attach additional 

documents to your primary comments. 

There is no limit to the length of the 

attachments. 

Please submit your comments by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

the electronic docket site by clicking on 

‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we 

ask that the documents submitted be 

scanned using Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing the agency to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions.4

• Please note that pursuant to the 

Data Quality Act, in order for 

substantive data to be relied upon and 

used by the agency, it must meet the 

information quality standards set forth 

in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act 

guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage 

you to consult the guidelines in 

preparing your comments. OMB’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ 

reproducible.html. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you submit your comments by mail 

and wish Docket Management to notify 

you upon its receipt of your comments, 

enclose a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard in the envelope containing 

your comments. Upon receiving your 

comments, Docket Management will 

return the postcard by mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation. See 49 CFR 512. 

In addition, you should submit a 

copy, from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments received after that date. 

Therefore, if interested persons believe 

that any new information the agency 

places in the docket affects their 

comments, they may submit comments 

after the closing date concerning how 

the agency should consider that 

information for the final rule. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

Docket Management Facility by going to 

the street address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 

Facility is open between 9 am and 5 pm 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking is not 

significant as it does not implicate any 

of the above-enumerated concerns. 

Accordingly, the Office of Management 

and Budget has not reviewed this 

rulemaking document under Executive 

Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has 

determined that the rulemaking is not 

significant under the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. 

Based on the type of fees and the 

anticipated use of the test track, NHTSA 

believes that the costs of the final rule 

would be minimal and would not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation. The proposed rule would 

increase fees charged to private 

manufacturers for use of a government 

facility to prevailing market rates. 

Manufacturers have a choice as to 

whether to use this government facility 

or a private commercial facility. As a 

result, this action does not involve any 

substantial public interest or 

controversy. Furthermore, NHTSA 

anticipates that any impact on the sale 

price of tires would be minimal, because 

an increase in testing fees would likely 

be distributed across a manufacturer’s 

sales volume. There would be no 

substantial effect upon State and local 

governments. There would be no 

substantial impact upon a major 

transportation safety program. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has evaluated this proposed 

action for purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and has 

determined that it would not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this proposed rulemaking under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq., as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996). 

NHTSA believes that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The following is NHTSA’s statement 

providing the factual basis for the 

certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Tire 

manufacturers are not small entities. 

The proposed amendments would affect 

businesses that conduct contract 

traction testing, some of which are small 

businesses within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the 

agency does not believe that this 

proposed rule would result in a 

significant economic impact on these 

entities. Under the proposed standards, 

the fees paid for use of the government 

facility would be essentially equivalent 

to those paid to a commercial testing 

facility—the market rate. The agency 

believes that small governmental 

jurisdictions would be only minimally 

affected by the proposed rule since they 

are generally not large scale purchasers 

of vehicles tires. Furthermore, even in 

the case of substantial purchases, as 

noted above, costs passed on to 

consumers are expected to be minimal 

since testing fees would likely be 

distributed across a manufacturer’s sales 

volume. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 on 

‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 

1999), requires NHTSA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ Executive Order 13132 

defines the term ‘‘policies that have 

federalism implications’’ to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or NHTSA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

The proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, 

Section 6 of the Executive Order does 

not apply to this rulemaking action. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996), NHTSA has considered 

whether this rulemaking would have 

any retroactive effect. The proposed rule 

would not have any retroactive effect. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, requires agencies to 

prepare a written assessment of the 

costs, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation 

with the base year of 2005). Adjusting 

this amount by the implicit gross 

domestic product price deflator for 2009 

results in $135 million (109.770/81.536 

= 1.35). 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, of more 

than $135 million annually, and will 

not result in an expenditure of that 

magnitude by private entities. Because a 

final rule based on this proposal would 

not require expenditures exceeding 

$135 million annually, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of Sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. The proposed rule does not 

require the collection of information by 

a Federal agency. Accordingly, the PRA 

is not applicable to this action. 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN that appears 

in the heading on the first page of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

I. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2313 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an organization, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575 

Consumer protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 

575 as follows: 

PART 575—CONSUMER 

INFORMATION 

1. The authority citation for part 575 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A, 

30111, 30115, 30117, 30123, 30166, and 

30168, Pub. L. 104–414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. 

L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110–140, 

121 Stat. 1492, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation 

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Revise Appendix D to § 575.104 to 

read as follows: 

§ 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading 

standards. 

* * * * * 

Appendix D—User Fees 

1. Use of Government Traction Skid Pads: 

A fee of $125 will be assessed for each hour, 

or fraction thereof, that the traction skid pads 

at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, 

Texas are used. This fee is based upon the 

market price of the use of the traction skid 

pads. 

2. Fee payments shall be by check, draft, 

money order, or Electronic Funds Transfer 

System made payable to the Treasurer of the 

United States. 

3. The fee set forth in this Appendix 

continues in effect until adjusted by the 

Administrator of NHTSA. The Administrator 

reviews the fee set forth in this Appendix 

and, if appropriate, adjusts it by rule at least 

every 2 years. 

Issued on: January 10, 2011. 

Claude Harris, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–643 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 101029546–0547–01] 

RIN 0648–BA39 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Bluefin Tuna Bycatch Reduction in the 

Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline 

Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to require the 

use of ‘‘weak hooks’’ in the Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) pelagic longline (PLL) 

fishery. A weak hook is a circle hook 

that meets NMFS’ current size and offset 

restrictions for the GOM PLL fishery, 

but is constructed of round stock wire 

that is thinner-gauge than the circle 

hooks currently used, i.e., no larger than 

3.65 mm in diameter. Weak hooks can 

allow incidentally hooked bluefin tuna 

(BFT) to escape capture because the 

hooks are more likely to straighten 

when a large fish is hooked. Requiring 

weak hooks in the GOM will reduce 

bycatch of BFT, allow the long-term 

beneficial socio-economic benefits of 

normal operation of directed fisheries in 

the GOM with minimal short-term 

negative socio-economic impacts, and 

have both short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts on the stock status of 

Atlantic BFT, an overfished species. 

Since 2007, NMFS has conducted 

research on weak hooks used on PLL 

vessels operating in the GOM to reduce 

the incidental catch of large BFT during 

directed PLL fishing for other species. 

Preliminary results show that the use of 

a weak hook can significantly reduce 

the amount of BFT caught incidentally 

by PLL vessels in the GOM. The 

purpose of the proposed action is to 

reduce PLL catch of Atlantic BFT in the 

GOM, which is the only known BFT 

spawning area for the western Atlantic 

stock of BFT. This action would be 

consistent with the advice of the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

Standing Committee for Research and 

Statistics (SCRS) that ICCAT may wish 

to protect the strong 2003 year class 

until it reaches maturity and can 

contribute to spawning. The purpose is 

also to allow directed fishing for other 

species to continue within allocated 

BFT sub-quota limits. This measure 

would be consistent with the 2006 

Consolidated Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), 

including the BFT rebuilding program. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until February 12, 2011. NMFS 

will hold three public hearings on this 

proposed rule on February 7, 2011, in 

Silver Spring, MD; February 9, 2011, in 

Panama City, FL; and February 10, 2011, 

in Kenner, LA to receive comments from 

fishery participants and other members 

of the public regarding this proposed 

rule. An operator-assisted conference 

call will be held to receive comments, 

only on this proposed rulemaking, from 

HMS Advisory Panel members on 

February 8, 2011. This is not an HMS 

Advisory Panel meeting, and the 

conference call will be open to members 

of the public, who may observe and 

comment to the extent time permits. 

Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this proposed 

rule for specific dates, times, and 

locations. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be 

held in Maryland, Florida, and 

Louisiana. Please see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this ANPR for specific dates, times, and 

locations. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by 0648–BA39, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

• Fax: 301–713–1917, Attn: Margo 

Schulze-Haugen 

• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark 

the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments 

on the Proposed Rule to Reduce Bluefin 

Tuna Bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico.’’ 

• Instructions: No comments will be 

posted for public viewing until after the 

comment period has closed. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and generally will be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS