Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 77661

tribunal record-keeping that could lead 

to errors and lessens the burden on 

employers who would need to respond 

to constantly adjusting income 

withholding orders to address small 

differences in the amount withheld. 

It is important to note that § 303.8 

continues to require States to review 

child support orders at least every 3 

years, upon request of a parent in any 

case, and upon request of the State if 

there is an assignment of support rights 

under title IV–A of the Act, and make 

adjustments, if appropriate, if the 

reasonable quantitative standard for an 

adjustment is met. Further, under 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, a State 

must have procedures under which a 

parent or other person who has standing 

may request a review and adjustment 

outside the regular 3-year (or shorter) 

cycle, and if the requesting party 

demonstrates a substantial change in 

circumstance, the State must adjust the 

order in accordance with its support 

guidelines.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

No new information collection 

requirements are imposed by these 

regulations, nor are any existing 

requirements changed as a result of their 

promulgation. Therefore, the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), regarding reporting and record 

keeping, do not apply. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), that 

this rule will not result in a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The primary impact is on State 

governments. State governments are not 

considered small entities under the Act. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Order 12866 requires that 

regulations be reviewed to ensure that 

they are consistent with the priorities 

and principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. The Department has determined 

that this rule is consistent with these 

priorities and principles because there 

is broad agreement among state IV–D 

agencies that removal of the burden, and 

reinstatement of prior policy, is 

necessary. Individuals, either those 

owing or those entitled to receive child 

support, will not be harmed, as only 

small adjustments (either up or down) 

in the amount of the child support 

obligation will be avoided. This 

regulation is considered a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under 3f of the 

Executive Order, and therefore has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 

that a covered agency prepare a 

budgetary impact statement before 

promulgating a rule that includes any 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

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 covered agency must prepare a 

budgetary impact statement, section 205 

further requires that it select the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with the 

statutory requirements. In addition, 

section 203 requires a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

We have determined that the interim 

final rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million in any one year. Accordingly, 

we have not prepared a budgetary 

impact statement, specifically addressed 

the regulatory alternatives considered, 

or prepared a plan for informing and 

advising any significantly or uniquely 

impacted small governments.

Congressional Review 

This regulation is not a major rule as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8. 

Assessment of Federal Regulations and 

Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to 

determine whether a proposed policy or 

regulations may affect family wellbeing. If the agency’s determination is 

affirmative, then the agency must 

prepare an impact assessment 

addressing seven criteria specified in 

the law. These regulations will not have 

an impact on family well-being as 

defined in the legislation. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 on Federalism 

applies to policies that have Federalism 

implications, defined as ‘‘regulations, 

legislative comments or proposed 

legislation, and other policy statements 

or actions that have substantial direct 

effects on the States, or on the 

distributions of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government’’. This rule does 

not have Federalism implications for 

State or local governments as defined in 

the Executive Order.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 303 

Child support, Grant programs—

social programs.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs No. 93.563, Child Support 

Enforcement Program.)

Dated: May 25, 2004. 

Wade F. Horn, 

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. 

Date Approved: September 29, 2004. 

Tommy G. Thompson, 

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

■ For the reasons discussed above, title 

45 CFR chapter III is amended as follows:

PART 303—STANDARDS FOR 

PROGRAM OPERATIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 303 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 

663, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 

1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).

§ 303.8 [Amended]

■ 2. In § 303.8, paragraph (c) is amended 

by removing ‘‘using automated methods 

under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this 

section’’.

[FR Doc. 04–28410 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 504

GSAR Amendment 2004–04; GSAR Case 

2004–G509 (Change 12)

RIN 3090–AI00

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation; Access to the 

Federal Procurement Data System

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition 

Officer, General Services 

Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments.

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is amending the 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by 

adding coverage to specify the rate that 

will be charged to non-governmental 

entities in exchange for permitting them 

to establish a direct computer 

connection with the Federal 

Procurement Data System database.

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 

2004.

77662 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment Date: Interested parties 

should submit comments in writing on 

or before February 28, 2005, to be 

considered in the formulation of a final 

rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by GSAR Amendment 2004–

04, GSAR case 2004–G509, by any of the 

following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: gsarcase.2004–

G509@gsa.gov. Include GSAR 

Amendment 2004–04, GSAR case 2004–

G509, in the subject line of the message.

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, 

ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, 

DC 20405.

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite GSAR Amendment 2004–

04, GSAR case 2004–G509, in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.acqnet.gov/GSAM/

gsamcomments.htm, including any 

personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS 

Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 

501–4755, for information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules. For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. Jerry 

Olson at (202) 501–3221. Please cite 

GSAR Amendment 2004–04, GSAR case 

2004–G509.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Federal Procurement Data System 

(FPDS) is the primary database of the 

Federal Government for information 

relating to Federal procurement. GSA, 

in keeping with its vision of providing 

greater transparency into Government 

contracting, announced that it will pay 

the costs to provide three years of free 

access to the public to data in the FPDS 

and to provide for a reduced cost for a 

special direct web services connection 

to the database.

Following is a description of the 

methods the public will be able to use 

to get data from FPDS.

The public will have access to the 

FPDS data using several methods:

• A copy of data can be made 

available using FTP (file transfer 

protocol) from the FPDS web site.

• Prewritten queries (that can be 

customized to produce data for 

specified period and organizations) can 

be used that will produce reports.

• Ad hoc queries can be written by 

members of the public to produce 

reports on nearly any desired set of 

FPDS data.

• Direct web services connection can 

be established between a public 

computer and the FPDS computers to 

use FPDS as a data source.

The first three methods are free. This 

rule concerns the fee for the fourth.

This interim rule establishes the onetime hook-up fee that will be charged to 

individuals, companies, or 

organizations wishing direct web 

services access to the database. They 

will be required to pay a $2,500 fee to 

partially cover the cost of technical 

support, testing, and certification of 

direct integration to the FPDS web 

services. However, they will not be 

required to pay a fee for the data itself. 

Direct access to the database may be 

restricted to non-peak hours, depending 

on level of demand and FPDS’s ability 

to service the demand without 

degradation of service to other users.

We expect only a few requests for the 

direct integration to the FPDS web 

services. We expect that nearly all of the 

public users will use the free data and 

report generation tools that will also be 

available. The public will use the same 

report generation tools as Federal 

employees to access the database. They 

will have access to the same data as 

Federal employees and they can 

generate the same reports as Federal 

employees, with minor exceptions. 

Certain data may be delayed and will 

not be available in real-time in order to 

guard against inappropriate release of 

data that could reveal pace of operations 

information.

GSA previously charged citizens a 

price for FPDS data, representing the 

costs incurred by GSA for providing the 

information.

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under Section 6(b) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, dated September 

30, 1993. This interim rule is not a 

major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that the amendments will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

because we do not expect a substantial 

number of small entities to request 

direct web services access to the FPDS 

database. Nearly all public access to the 

FPDS database is expected to occur via 

the free report generation tools and free 

data provided by GSA. GSA will 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the affected GSAR Subpart 

504.6 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. 

Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 

GSAR case 2004–G509, in 

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because this interim rule does 

not contain any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

D. Determination to Issue an Interim 

Rule

A determination has been made under 

the authority of the Administrator of 

General Services that compelling 

reasons exist to promulgate this interim 

rule without prior opportunity for 

public comment. This rule is necessary 

to establish the rate of payment for the 

connection fee for direct web access to 

the FPDS database. Access is planned to 

begin immediately after December 31, 

2004, and there is insufficient time to 

obtain public comments prior to that 

date. Comments received in response to 

the publication of this interim rule will 

be considered in formulating the final 

rule.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 504

Government procurement.

Dated: December 20, 2004

David A. Drabkin,

Senior Procurement Executive,General 

Services Administration.

■ Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 

504 as set forth below:

PART 504—ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 504 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c).

■ 2. Add Subpart 504.6, consisting of 

section 504.602–71, to read as follows:

Subpart 504.6—Contract Reporting 

Sec.

504.602–71 Federal Procurement Data 

System-Public Access to Data.

504.602–71 Federal Procurement Data 

System-Public Access to Data.

(a) The FPDS database. The General 

Services Administration awarded a 

contract for creation and operation of 

the Federal Procurement Data System 

(FPDS) database. That database includes 

information reported by departments 

and agencies as required by Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 

4.6. One of the primary purposes of the 

FPDS database is to provide information 

on Government procurement to the 

public.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 77663

1Complaint Counsel’s position in the 

administrative proceeding was consistent with the 

position taken by the agency’s Acting Chief Counsel 

in a 1990 letter to the Chrysler Corporation setting 

forth the agency’s interpretation of the law as 

applied to Chrysler’s acquisition of AMC. Pursuant 

to 49 CFR part 501.8(d)(5), the NHTSA 

Administrator has delegated to the Chief Counsel 

the authority ‘‘to issue authoritative interpretations 

of the statutes administered by NHTSA and the 

regulations issued by the agency.’’

(b) Fee for direct hook-up. To the 

extent that a member of the public 

requests establishment of real-time 

integration of reporting services to run 

reports from another application, a onetime charge of $2,500 for the original 

integration must be paid by the 

requestor. This one-time charge covers 

the setup and certification required for 

an integrator to access the FPDS 

database and for technical assistance to 

help integrators use the web services. 

The fee will be paid to the FPDS 

contractor and credited to invoices 

submitted to GSA by the FPDS 

contractor.

[FR Doc. 04–28280 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–61–S

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 534 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004–19940] 

RIN 2127–AG97 

Fuel Economy Standards—Credits and 

Fines—Rights and Responsibilities of 

Manufacturers in the Context of 

Changes in Corporate Relationships

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes a 

new regulation governing the use of 

rights (credits) and liabilities (fines) 

under the Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy program in the face of changes 

in corporate relationships. This final 

rule fulfills a statutory responsibility to 

issue a regulation addressing these 

issues.

DATES: The rule is effective January 27, 

2005. 

Petitions for Reconsideration must be 

received by February 11, 2005. Petitions 

for reconsideration should refer to the 

docket and notice number of this 

document and be submitted to the 

Administrator of NHTSA 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Suite 5219, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. (202–366–5263)

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction and History 

II. Applicable Statutory Provisions 

III. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

IV. Public Comments 

V. Post-NPRM CAFE Considerations 

VI. The Final Regulation 

A. Definitions 

B. CAFE Credits 

1. Legal Considerations 

2. Policy Considerations 

C. Acquisitions During a Model Year 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Introduction and History 

This final rule establishes a regulation 

governing the treatment of corporate 

assets and liabilities arising from the 

agency’s Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) program in the face of 

changes in corporate relationships. It 

fulfills a statutory responsibility to 

define by regulation the use of CAFE 

credits and liabilities in light of changes 

in corporate structure. 

In December 1975, Congress enacted 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA). The EPCA established the 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) program by adding a new Title 

V to the Motor Vehicle Information and 

Cost Saving Act. Congress has made 

various amendments to the fuel 

economy provisions since 1975, and the 

fuel economy provisions are now 

codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of 

the United States Code. 

The CAFE statute requires that a 

manufacturer meet average fuel 

economy standards, as established by 

regulation, separately for fleets of light 

trucks, domestic passenger cars and 

imported passenger cars. A 

manufacturer’s average fuel economy for 

a particular model year is calculated in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32904. The 

establishment of CAFE standards and 

the calculation of average fuel economy 

is statutorily tied to ‘‘automobiles 

manufactured by a manufacturer’’ for 

any given model year. (49 U.S.C. 32902, 

32904) 

The statute specifically provides that, 

with regard to each individual fleet, a 

manufacturer may earn credits by 

exceeding the applicable standard and 

may use those credits, for three years 

forward and three years back, to offset 

any shortfalls in CAFE compliance 

applicable in a particular model year. 

Again the statute makes clear that the 

number of credits earned is tied to the 

volume of automobiles manufactured by 

the manufacturer. (49 U.S.C. 32903) 

Manufacturers failing to meet the 

established fleet standard for a 

particular model year must, if they do 

not have credits available to offset their 

shortfall, pay fines to the United States 

Treasury. Over the history of the CAFE 

program, manufacturers have paid over 

140 fines totaling more than $600 

million. The highest fine ever paid by a 

single manufacturer was almost $28 

million, with the average approximating 

$4 million. 

The provisions of EPCA recognize 

that changes in corporate structures are 

common and that a ‘‘manufacturer,’’ as 

defined by the CAFE statute, may 

change in light of new corporate 

relationships. In 1980, Congress 

amended the definition of a 

manufacturer to explicitly contemplate 

corporate successors and predecessors. 

Congress recognized at that time that 

CAFE credits and responsibilities would 

become assets and liabilities in the 

course of such changes, and directed the 

Secretary of Transportation to 

promulgate regulations defining how 

such credits and responsibilities should 

be treated when corporate changes 

occur. (49 U.S.C. 32901(13)) 

The agency did not immediately move 

to establish the regulation Congress 

prescribed. Nonetheless, in 1991, the 

Administrator authorized the agency’s 

Complaint Counsel to initiate an 

administrative complaint against the 

Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler). As 

Congress anticipated, structural 

corporate change gave rise to issues 

relating to the application of CAFE 

rights and responsibilities. Chrysler had 

purchased the assets of American 

Motors Company (AMC) and Chrysler 

had fallen short of an applicable CAFE. 

AMC had available credits that Chrysler 

wished to apply to its existing shortfall. 

Chrysler took the position that AMC’s 

CAFE credits were available to the new 

corporate entity. Complaint Counsel 

disagreed and sought to impose CAFE 

fines for Chrysler’s failure to meet the 

applicable CAFE standard.1

On January 8, 1992, an Administrative 

Law Judge issued an Initial Decision 

and Order. While expressing in dictum 

support for Complaint Counsel’s 

position, the ALJ ruled that the agency 

could not enforce that position because 

it had not, as the statute anticipates, 

promulgated regulations in accordance 

with the Administrative Procedures Act. 

NHTSA’s Administrator terminated the 

prosecution and directed the agency to 

initiate rulemaking. In an order dated 

March 31, 1992, NHTSA’s 

Administrator found:

Upon further consideration of the matters 

at issue in this proceeding, I have decided 

that NHTSA should prescribe regulations