Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33481

II. Discussion

4. The Commission has reviewed the

initial request made by CIX in its

petition—that we clarify our network

information disclosure rules to require

incumbent local exchange carriers to

provide information regarding DSLAMs

and line conditioning to ISPs. CIX

essentially asks the Commission to

clarify that section 251(c)(5) of the

Communications Act and the rules

implementing that section require

disclosure of such information. We

decline to do so. The Commission did

not raise this issue in the Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking in these

dockets. Thus, the CIX request for

clarification with regard to information

on deployment of DSLAMs and line

conditioning is beyond the scope of this

proceeding. Accordingly, we deny that

request for clarification on

reconsideration.

5. CIX next requests that the

Commission clarify that the BOCs are

obligated to post on their websites a

complete copy of all their CEI plans—

rather than merely a copy of ‘‘new or

altered’’ plans. We grant this request. It

was not our intention in the Computer

III Report and Order to exclude from the

CEI posting requirement the BOCs’

existing plans. As CIX notes in its

petition, it is important for all CEI plans

to be available on the BOCs’ websites,

including those previously filed plans.

Otherwise, it would be difficult for the

ISPs to get information regarding plans

filed with the Commission under the

prior CEI regime. Moreover, we do not

believe that requiring the BOCs to post

all their plans and plan amendments—

both old and new—is unduly

burdensome, especially given the

benefit of having all these plans in one,

easily accessible place. Accordingly, we

clarify that the BOCs must post all their

existing and new CEI plans and plan

amendments on their Internet websites

and notify the Common Carrier Bureau

at the time of the posting.

III. Ordering Clause

6. The petition for reconsideration

and clarification filed by the

Commercial Internet eXchange

Association IS GRANTED IN PART and

IS DENIED IN PART, to the extent

discussed above.

Federal Communications Commission

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13039 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 00–7364]

RIN 2127–AG96

Consumer Information Regulations:

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test

Procedures

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

treadwear testing procedures under the

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

(UTQGS). To ensure the consistency of

the treadwear grades from one year to

the next, the agency monitors the

changing roughness of the test course,

periodically calculates a base course

wear rate (BCWR), and uses it to adjust

the measured wear rates of tires driven

over the course. To monitor the test

course, the agency uses special tires

designated as course monitoring tires

(CMTs).

The agency is amending the UTQGS

to change the computation of the BCWR

used in calculating the treadwear grade

of passenger car tires. These

amendments establish a direct

comparison of the wear rates of CMTs

used as the control standard with the

wear rates of the candidate tires, i.e., the

tires being tested for the purposes of

grading. This direct comparison will

result in more consistent treadwear

ratings by compensating for any changes

or variations in CMT characteristics.

NHTSA will measure the wear rate of

CMTs 4 times per year and use the

average wear rate from the last 4

quarterly CMT tests as a basis for the

BCWR. NHTSA is further requiring that

CMTs used to determine wear rate be

not more than 1 year old at the

commencement of the test and that the

CMTs used in the test must be used

within 2 months after removal from

storage.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments

in this final rule are effective July 24,

2000.

Petitions for reconsideration of this

final rule must be received by NHTSA

not later than July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should be submitted to the

Administrator, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Mr. Sanjay Patel,

Safety Standards Engineer, Office of

Planning and Consumer Programs,

Office of Safety Performance Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202)

366–0307.

For legal issues: Mr. Stephen P.

Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for

Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590;

telephone (202) 366–2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

1. Current Provisions.

Section 30123(e) of title 49, United

States Code (U.S.C.) requires the

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe

a uniform system for grading motor

vehicle tires to assist consumers in

making informed choices when

purchasing tires. In response to that

congressional mandate, NHTSA

established the Uniform Tire Quality

Grading Standards (UTQGS) in 49 CFR

575.104.

The UTQGS require tire

manufacturers and tire brand name

owners to grade their tires with respect

to the tires’ relative performance with

respect to treadwear, traction, and

temperature resistance. Treadwear

grades are shown by numbers, such as

100, 160, and 200, with the higher

numbers indicating greater treadwear

performance. The traction grades are

indicated by AA, A, B, and C, with AA

representing the highest performance

characteristics and C the lowest. The

temperature resistance grades are

indicated by the letters A, B, and C,

with A representing the best

performance and C indicating the

minimum level of performance

necessary to comply with Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

The UTQGS provide that treadwear

grades are developed first by running

the tires being graded, called ‘‘candidate

tires,’’ over a selected 400-mile segment

of public highway outside San Angelo,

Texas. After an 800-mile ‘‘break-in’’ run,

the candidate tires are driven over the

test course for a total of 6,400 miles in

test convoys composed of 4 passenger

cars and/or light trucks. Each driver

remains in the same position within the

convoy. The vehicles are regularly

rotated among the 4 positions in the

convoy as are the positions of the tires

on the test vehicles so that each

candidate tire gets equal time with each

driver, each vehicle, and each wheel

position.

33482 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1The designation ‘‘E1136’’ refers to the standard

specification of materials and construction practices

codified by ASTM as suitable for control tires for

scientific experimentation.

Special tires known as ‘‘course

monitoring tires’’ (CMT) are used as the

control in grading candidate tires. CMTs

are specially designed and built to

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) standard E1136 to

have particularly narrow limits of

variability.1 Until the amendments to

the UTQGS published in a final rule on

September 9, 1996 (61 FR 4737),

whenever the agency procured a new

batch, or lot, of CMTs, we established a

new base course wear rate (BCWR) for

that lot. We established the BCWR,

measured in mils per thousand miles,

by running tires from the new lot of

CMTs over the 6,400-mile test course, in

the same manner as candidate tires,

with tires from the previous batch of

CMTs. We determined a course severity

adjustment factor (CSAF) for the new

CMTs by dividing the BCWR for the old

CMTs by the average wear rate of the

old CMTs in the test. The wear rate of

the new CMTs was then multiplied by

the CSAF to determine the adjusted

wear rate (AWR) of the new CMTs. That

value then became the BCWR for the

new CMTs.

Once the BCWR for the new CMTs

was established, the new CMTs were

used to grade candidate tires. Upon

completion of the 6,400-mile test, the

BCWR was divided by the average wear

rate of the CMTs to determine the CSAF

for the candidate tires. That factor was

then applied to the wear rates of the

candidate tires to obtain the AWR of the

candidate tires. That AWR was then

extrapolated to the point of wearout

(considered to be 1⁄16th inch of

remaining tread depth). The resultant

value was then converted to the

treadwear rating of the tire.

The BCWR was originally intended to

provide a common baseline by which to

grade candidate tires by relating all new

CMTs to the original lot of CMTs. We

noted, however, that the BCWRs of

successive new lots of CMTs steadily

declined over the years. The trend has

been that every time a fresh CMT of the

new lot was tested in the same convoy

with an old CMT, the fresh CMT

consistently experienced a lower wear

rate than the old CMT. The first lot of

CMTs that we procured in 1975 were

commercially-available Goodyear

Custom Steelguards that yielded a

BCWR of 4.44. The lot of ASTM E–1136

CMTs that we procured in 1995, on the

other hand, produced a BCWR of 1.34.

Table I shows the consistent decline in

wear rate for each new lot of CMTs.

CMT WEAR RATE AND BASE COURSE WEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Year Manufacturer Series Measured

wear rate CSAF Adj. wearrate BCWR

1975 ......... Goodyear ......................................................................... Batch 1 4.44 1.0 4.44 4.44

1979 ......... Goodyear ......................................................................... Batch 1 4.08 1.09 4.44 ......................

1979 ......... Goodyear ......................................................................... Batch 2 3.82 1.09 4.16 4.16

1980 ......... Goodyear ......................................................................... Batch 2 5.29 0.79 4.16 ......................

1980 ......... Goodyear ......................................................................... Batch 3 4.76 0.79 3.74 3.74

1984 ......... Goodyear ......................................................................... Batch 3 4.22 0.89 3.74 ......................

1984 ......... Uniroyal ............................................................................ 4000 3.27 0.89 2.90 2.90

1987 ......... Uniroyal ............................................................................ 4000 5.96 0.49 2.90 ......................

1987 ......... Uniroyal ............................................................................ 71000 4.56 0.49 2.22 2.22

1989 ......... Uniroyal ............................................................................ 71000 5.01 0.44 2.22 ......................

1989 ......... Uniroyal ............................................................................ 91000 4.84 0.44 2.14 2.14

1991 ......... Uniroyal ............................................................................ 91000 6.24 0.34 2.14 ......................

1991 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 010000 4.94 0.34 1.70 1.70

1991 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 010000 6.96 0.24 1.70 ......................

1992 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 110000 6.65 0.24 1.62 1.62

1992 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 110000 5.83 0.28 1.62 ......................

1992 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 210000 5.60 0.28 1.56 1.56

1993 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 210000 7.21 0.22 1.56 ......................

1993 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 310000 6.80 0.22 1.47 1.47

1995 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 310000 6.47 0.23 1.47 ......................

1995 ......... ASTM E1136 ................................................................... 410000 5.91 0.23 1.34 1.34

In replacing CMTs from the original

lot procured in 1975, we note that the

greatest difference in the AWR between

nominally identical CMTs of different

ages was about 30 percent. This

occurred in 1987 when the old CMTs

had been stored for about 3 years. The

least difference in the AWR between

nominally identical CMTs of different

ages was about 4 percent that occurred

in the second 1992 replacement. At that

time, the old CMTs had been stored less

than a year. Table I also shows that the

treadwear rate disadvantage of the aged

CMTs at replacement varied

considerably from a linear relationship

with age. This could suggest that the

rate may have been exacerbated by

actual batch differences of the

commercial tires used as CMTs prior to

1991.

The significance of the decrease in the

BCWR rate is that as the BCWR

decreased, the treadwear grades of

candidate tires increased. Consequently,

the newer treadwear grades have

increased to the point that they are no

longer a reliable indicator of actual

treadwear performance when compared

to tires tested with higher BCWRs.

To correct this problem, we froze the

BCWR at 1.34 mils in the final rule of

September 9, 1996 (61 FR 47437),

believing that freezing the BCWR at that

figure would significantly reduce, if not

eliminate, any variation in the grading

between lots. We also believed that the

use of ASTM E1136 tires that are

produced with strict quality control

would also contribute to reduction of

any lot-to-lot variations. We stated,

however, that we had requested the

assistance of the ASTM F9 committee in

devising a better treadwear test and that

we would request data in a future

rulemaking on the effects of tire aging

on treadwear performance and storage

procedures to reduce aging.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33483

2The NPRM originally called for a comment

closing date of August 4, 1998. At the request of the

Rubber Manufacturers Association, however, we extended the comment period until October 5, 1998

(63 FR 41538, August 4, 1998).

(2) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On June 5, 1998, we published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

proposing to revise the treadwear testing

procedures of the UTQGS to ensure the

consistency of treadwear grades from

one year to the next. 2 To achieve that

result, we proposed to revise the

procedure for calculating the BCWR by

directly comparing the wear rates of

CMTs with the wear rates of the

candidate tires. Specifically, we

proposed to measure the wear rates of

CMTs 4 times per year, then use the

average wear rate from the last 4

quarterly CMT tests as a basis for the

BCWR. We also proposed that CMTs

used to determine the wear rate be no

more than 6 months old at the

commencement of the test and that the

difference in production dates of the

CMTs being tested be not greater than 3

months. If CMTs being tested were more

than 6 months old, we proposed that the

average wear rate be reduced by 10

percent.

B. Comments on the NPRM

We received 2 comments on the

NPRM, one from the Rubber

Manufacturers Association (RMA), and

the other from Uniroyal Goodrich Tire

Manufacturing (Uniroyal).

1. General

RMA opposed the proposals in the

NPRM, stating that our action in

freezing the BCWR at 1.34 in the final

rule of September 9, 1996 was sufficient

to solve the treadwear inflation

problem. Uniroyal generally supported

the agency’s intent in trying to ensure

the consistency of the treadwear grades

from year to year, but believed that this

can be accomplished more efficiently

than by the procedures that we

proposed.

Both opposed our proposal to require

that CMTs be not more than 6 months

old when tested to determine the

BCWR, arguing that that requirement

would increase the costs of production,

shipping, and storage for all

manufacturers with no additional

benefit for consumers. Uniroyal, the sole

current manufacturer of E–1136 tires,

stated that having to test CMTs that are

6-months old and within 3 months’

production dates of each other would

mean that testers would specify the

most recent CMTs rather than take a

chance on reducing their wear rates by

10 percent. This would require that

CMTs be produced on a quarterly basis.

Uniroyal stated that E–1136 tires are

already produced in extremely small

quantities and that more frequent

production would be logistically

impossible. RMA stated that the

complexities associated with

coordination, production, shipping,

storage, and testing of CMTs and

candidate tires within a 6-month period

is not realistic. Both commenters agreed

that the cost and logistical problems of

producing E–1136 tires so frequently

and in such small quantities would

increase the unit cost of such tires by a

factor of 3 to 4 and could result in less

lot-to-lot consistency.

Both commenters supported a

requirement that CMTs be tested within

1 year after production. RMA stated that

if the proposals in the NPRM are not

withdrawn, it requested that no

penalties be applied to tires tested

within 1 year of production. RMA

argued that the aging characteristics of

CMTs and candidate tires would

contribute to a ‘‘leveling effect’’ which,

together with the logistical restrictions

of production, shipping, and storage,

would minimize any difference in tread

life during the first year. RMA stated,

however, that for CMTs older than 1

year, any penalty should be no more

than 5 percent. Uniroyal recommended

that E–1136 CMTs be utilized for testing

up to 1 year after production, with no

more than 3 months’ difference in

production dates between the tires

tested.

2. Additional Uniroyal Comments

a. Uniroyal suggested using a linear

relationship to adjust for aging of CMTs

rather the ‘‘step’’ function that the

agency proposed. Uniroyal referred to

NHTSA study DOT HS 808–701, Critical

Evaluation of UTQG Treadwear Testing

& Methodology, which found an aging

effect of approximately 5 percent per

year for cave-stored tires and about 10

percent for non-cave-stored tires. Thus,

Uniroyal encouraged the continued use

of cave storage for CMTs.

Uniroyal recommended that tires used

in NHTSA’s tests be used as soon as

they are received from the cave and the

BCWR calculated as follows:

ABCWR BCWR TESTWK DOTWK = − CMT AAF c  −



 



 * * 1

52

Where:

ABCWR=Adjusted Base Course Wear

Rate

BCWR=Base Course Wear Rate

TESTTWK¥DOTWK CMT=Difference,

in weeks, between date at start of

test and CMTDOT

AAF c=Age Adjustment Factor for

cave-stored tires=0.05

The new adjusted base course wear rate

will be obtained by using average wear

rate from the last 4 quarterly tests

conducted by NHTSA.

(b) Since NHTSA showed in its study

that CMTs that were not continually

cave-stored aged at twice the rate of

those that were, Uniroyal proposed the

following calculation for the adjustment

factor if the production date of the CMT

is older than that of the candidate tire:

1

52 −

DOTWK DOTWK −

TST CMT * AAF o

Thus, the grade (P) would be computed as follows:

33484 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

3Uniroyal ships its E–1136 tires immediately

after production to a storage facility located in a

cave in the Ozark mountains. This facility has a

constant temperature of about 60 °F. and is remote

from ozone-producing electrical equipment.

P

DOTWK DOTWK

AAF o ABCWR

=

 −



 





Projected Mileage 1-

 

 TST CMT

52

402

* *

Where:

ABCWR=Adjusted Base Course Wear

Rate (from a. above)

DOTTWKTST¥

DOTWKCMT=Difference, in weeks,

between candidate tire and CMT

AAF o=Age Adjustment Factor for

tires stored at test site after leaving

cave=0.10

If the candidate tire is equal to or

older than the CMT tire, no adjustment

is made.

c. NHTSA should measure the CMT

wear rate at least 4 times per year and

include CMTs approximately one year

old in their measurements. The

inclusion of older CMTs in these

measurements would result in a long

term record of the aging effect and verify

(or not) the approximately 5 percent per

year age effect reported in DOT HS 808–

701.

C. Discussion

For the past few years, NHTSA has

been studying various ways to arrest the

consistent decline in the BCWR that we

believe has been the primary cause of

the inflation that has plagued the

treadwear grading system almost from

the beginning. That treadwear grade

inflation was the basis on which we

froze the BCWR at 1.34 mils in the final

rule of September 9, 1996 (61 FR at

47441), which became effective March

9, 1998. The elapsed time since then has

not given us sufficient data on which to

determine whether the freezing of the

BCWR has had the desired effect of

arresting the treadwear grade inflation

altogether, although preliminary

indications are that it has had a very

positive effect on the problem. In

addition to contributing to the arrest of

the treadwear grade inflation, however,

the procedures specified in this final

rule are intended to provide CMT

replacement procedures that would be

valid in all circumstances. We could use

these procedures, for example, if ASTM

changed its design specifications of the

E–1136 tires; if E–1136 tires became

unavailable and we were required to

substitute other tires for use as CMTs; or

in the event of a significant change in

the surface of the test road course.

Finally, these procedures will enable us

to test the assumption of batch

uniformity of ASTM-specification tires.

NHTSA is persuaded by the

comments of the RMA and Uniroyal that

it is not logistically feasible to produce

E–1136 tires as frequently and in such

small lots as would be necessary to

consistently provide CMTs that are less

than 6 months old. We have historically

procured about 200 CMTs per year,

retaining 12 for our own use and

providing the remainder to other testers.

In making the CMT test runs 4 times per

year, we will now consume 64 CMTs

per year, but the other testers are

expected to consume about the same

number as before. Therefore, the

increase in the number of CMTs

consumed per year is relatively small

and not enough to justify Uniroyal’s

having to make more production runs of

CMTs than before, with the additional

logistical problems of lot-to-lot

consistency, storage, and shipping.

Because of Uniroyal’s production and

logistical constraints on the

manufacture of E–1136 tires, we have

decided that the most practical solution

would be to require that CMTs used in

establishing the BCWR be less than 1

year old, instead of not more than 6-

months old as we proposed. Further, we

will not require that the CMTs used in

the testing have production dates within

3 months of each other, nor will we

require the 10 percent adjustment for

tires over the prescribed age since this

could create a demand for newer tires

that would disrupt Uniroyal’s

production schedule. We are, however,

requiring that CMTs be cave-stored until

used 3 and that, in addition to being not

more than 1 year old, the CMTs must be

used within 2 months after being

removed from cave storage. The 2-

month requirement is intended to

minimize any degradation while in

uncontrolled storage conditions. The

aging of up to 1 year in the cave could

result in a degradation of up to 5

percent, an amount that we have

decided to accept under the

circumstances as the best compromise

available within the economic

constraints of the CMT supply system.

Although the rate of treadwear

degradation due to aging is not an exact

science, our experience has been that

tires stored outside the cave degrade at

approximately 10 percent per year,

while tires stored under the controlled

climatic conditions of the cave degrade

at a significantly lower rate, no more

than a nominal 5 percent. The above

computations that Uniroyal suggested

would compensate for that possible 5

percent aging degradation, if meticulous

records were kept of the amount of time

each CMT spent in the cave and in

uncontrolled storage and if our estimate

of the aging effect were accurate. We

believe that the proposed Uniroyal

computation is too complicated in

relation to the small increase in

accuracy. Therefore, for the sake of

simplicity and, as stated above,

considering that the treadwear

measurement is not a precision test, we

are willing to accept the possibility of

tire degradation of up to 5 percent,

which might result in the slight

overgrading of candidate tires.

Accordingly, we adhere to the formula

P = Projected mileage*BCWRn/402

that we proposed in the NPRM.

In summary, this final rule revises the

procedure for measuring the wear rate of

CMTs by running them over the test

course 4 times per year, then using the

average wear rate from the last 4

quarterly CMT test runs as a basis for

the BCWR. The CMTs used in the test

runs must be not more than 1 year old

at the commencement of the test and

must be used within 2 months after

being withdrawn from storage.

This final rule makes one additional

change. NHTSA has been leasing a

warehouse to store the CMTs for sale to

other testers. Given the amendments

made by this final rule, NHTSA need no

longer store the CMTs for the testers.

They can purchase tires directly from

the manufacturer for less than what

NHTSA was charging. Accordingly, we

are amending 575.104(e)(1)(ii) to delete

the sentence stating that CMTs are

available from NHTSA.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This document was not reviewed

under Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review

NHTSA has analyzed the impact of

this rulemaking action and has

determined that it is not ‘‘significant’’

under the DOT’s regulatory policies and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33485

procedures. This action changes the

calculation for determining the base

course wear rate of course monitoring

tires which is, in turn, used to

determine the treadwear grade of

candidate tires under the Uniform Tire

Quality Grading Standards. This action

does not impose any additional costs on

motor vehicle or tire manufacturers,

distributors, or dealers. Instead, it

permits tire manufacturers greater

flexibility in their testing programs and

could result in slightly lower costs by

permitting them to procure course

monitoring tires directly from the

manufacturer rather than through

NHTSA, as has been the practice in the

past. Specifically, NHTSA has been

leasing a warehouse to store the CMTs

for sale to other testers. We have

charged them a markup on each tire to

cover our storage and handling

expenses. Given the amendments made

by this final rule, NHTSA need no

longer store the CMTs for the testers.

They can purchase tires directly from

the manufacturer for less than what

NHTSA was charging, which also saves

NHTSA the time, trouble, and expense

of storage and handling. We estimate

that this will save the tire companies

approximately $24,000 per year.

Accordingly, because the cost savings

are minimal, the agency did not prepare

a full regulatory evaluation.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has considered the effects

of this rulemaking action under the

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

et seq. I hereby certify that this

rulemaking action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

The following is the agency’s

statement providing the factual basis for

the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The

amendments proposed herein will

primarily affect manufacturers of

passenger car tires. The Small Business

Administration (SBA) regulation at 13

CFR part 121 defines a small business

in part as a business entity ‘‘which

operates primarily within the United

States’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).

SBA’s size standards are organized

according to Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) codes. SIC code No.

3711, Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car

Bodies, has a small business size

standard of 1,000 or fewer employees.

SIC code No. 3714, Motor Vehicle Parts

and Accessories, has a small business

size standard of 750 or fewer employees.

The amendments in this rulemaking

action merely change the testing

procedure for and calculation of the

treadwear grade under the Uniform Tire

Quality Grading Standards. The purpose

of this new procedure is to arrest the

treadwear grade inflation that has been

experienced over the past several years.

The amendments will make it necessary

for NHTSA to conduct additional testing

to determine the base course wear rate

from which treadwear grades are

calculated by tire manufacturers. The

amendments, however, will not impose

any additional requirements or burdens

on tire manufacturers, most of which do

not qualify as small businesses under

SBA guidelines. Thus, the new

procedures will not result in any

increase in costs for tire manufacturers,

small businesses, or consumers.

Accordingly, there will not be any

significant impact on small businesses,

small organizations, or small

governmental units by the amendments

in this final rule. Thus, the agency has

not prepared a final regulatory

flexibility analysis. Annual

expenditures from this final rule will

not exceed the $100 million threshold.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

The agency has analyzed this

rulemaking in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 13132 and has

determined that it does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant consultation with State and

local officials or the preparation of a

federalism summary impact statement.

The final rule has no substantial effects

on the States, or on the current FederalState relationship, or on the current

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various local

officials.

d. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act and has

determined that this rulemaking action

will not have any significant impact on

the quality of the human environment.

e. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96–511,

NHTSA states that there are no

information collection requirements

associated with this rulemaking action.

f. Civil Justice Reform

The amendments made by this final

rule will not have any retroactive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is

in effect, a state or political subdivision

thereof may prescribe or continue in

effect a standard applicable to the same

aspect of performance of a motor vehicle

only if the standard is identical to the

Federal standard. However, the United

States government or a state or political

subdivision of a state may prescribe a

standard for a motor vehicle or motor

vehicle equipment obtained for its own

use that imposes a higher performance

requirement than that required by the

Federal standard. Section 30161 of Title

49, U.S. Code sets forth a procedure for

judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

A petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings is not

required before parties may file suit in

court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

Consumer information, Labeling,

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles,

Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 575 is amended as follows:

PART 575—CONSUMER

INFORMATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 575

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 575.104 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii), paragraph

(e)(2)(ix)(C), and paragraph (e)(2) (ix)(F),

to read as follows:

§ 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading

standards.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Treadwear grades are evaluated by

first measuring the performance of a

candidate tire on the government test

course, and then correcting the

projected mileages obtained to account

for environmental variations on the

basis of the performance of the course

monitoring tires run in the same

convoy.

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(ix) * * *

(C) Determine the course severity

adjustment factor by dividing the base

course wear rate for the course

monitoring tires (see Note to this

paragraph) by the average wear rate for

the four course monitoring tires.

Note to paragraph (e)(2)(ix)(C): The base

wear rate for the course monitoring tires will

be obtained by the government by running

ASTM E–1136 course monitoring tires for

6,400 miles over the San Angelo, Texas,

UTQGS test route 4 times per year, then

using the average wear rate from the last 4

quarterly CMT tests for the base course wear

rate calculation. Each new base course wear

rate will be filed in the DOT Docket

33486 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Management section. This value will be

furnished to the tester by the government at

the time of the test. The course monitoring

tires used in a test convoy must be no more

than one year old at the commencement of

the test and must be used within two months

after removal from storage.

* * * * *

(F) Compute the grade (P) of the

NHTSA nominal treadwear value for

each candidate tire by using the

following formula:

P = Projected mileage × base course

wear raten/402

Where base course wear raten = new

base course wear rate, i.e., average

treadwear of the last 4 quarterly course

monitoring tire tests conducted by

NHTSA.

Round off the percentage to the nearest

lower 20-point increment.

* * * * *

Issued on May 11, 2000.

Rosalyn G. Millman,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–12873 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 000119014–0137–02; I.D. No.

112399C]

RIN 0648–AM48

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and

Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2000

Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule, final specifications,

and commercial quota adjustment for

the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and

black sea bass fisheries; notification of

commercial quota harvest.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues the final

specifications for the 2000 summer

flounder, scup, and black sea bass

fisheries. The annual specifications for

the scup fishery include a new

provision to restrict fishing in certain

areas during certain time periods to

reduce discards of scup in small-mesh

fisheries. This action contains

preliminary adjustments to the 2000

commercial quotas for the summer

flounder, scup, and black sea bass

fisheries. This action also prohibits

federally permitted commercial vessels

from landing summer flounder in the

State of Delaware for the year 2000. The

intent of this document is to comply

with implementing regulations for the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea

Bass Fisheries (FMP) that require NMFS

to publish measures for the upcoming

fishing year that will prevent

overfishing of these fisheries.

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, May 24,

2000, through 2400 hours, December 31,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the

Environmental Assessment (EA)/

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA),

including the Essential Fish Habitat

Assessment are available from Patricia

A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,

Northeast Region, National Marine

Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. The EA/

RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet

at http://www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

Comments regarding the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in

this final rule should be sent to the

Regional Administrator and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503

(Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy

Analyst, (978)281–9221, fax (978)281–

9135, e-mail regina.l.spallone@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FMP was developed jointly by

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (Commission) and the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council

(Council) in consultation with the New

England and South Atlantic Fishery

Management Councils. The management

units specified in the FMP include

summer flounder (Paralichthys

dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic

Ocean from the southern border of

North Carolina northward to the U.S./

Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus

chrysops) and black sea bass

(Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of

the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3’ N.

latitude (the latitude of Cape Hatteras

Light, NC) northward to the U.S./

Canada border. Implementing

regulations for these fisheries are found

at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A, G

(summer flounder), H (scup), and I

(black sea bass).

Pursuant to §§ 648.100 (summer

flounder), 648.120 (scup), and 648.140

(black sea bass), the Regional

Administrator, Northeast Region,

NMFS, (Regional Administrator)

implements measures for the fishing

year to assure that the target fishing

mortality (F) or exploitation rate for

each fishery, as specified in the FMP is

not exceeded. The target F or

exploitation rate and management

measures are summarized below by

species. Detailed background

information regarding the development

of the proposed specifications was

provided in the proposed specifications

for the 2000 summer flounder, scup and

black sea bass fisheries (65 FR 4547,

January 28, 2000), and is not repeated

here. NMFS will publish a proposed

and final rule for the 2000 recreational

management measures for these

fisheries in the Federal Register at a

later date.

On April 25, 2000, during the last

stages of review of this final rule, the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit (Court)

issued an opinion on a challenge to the

1999 summer flounder specifications by

a number of environmental groups. The

Court noted that the 1999 quota, when

adopted, had only an 18-percent

likelihood of meeting the conservation

goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Court

invalidated the 1999 quota and

remanded the case to NMFS for further

proceedings. The Court set a minimum

standard for harvest quotas to comply

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, namely

that quotas must have at least a 50-

percent probability of achieving the

target fishing mortality rate.

Given the timing of the opinion and

the urgency of regulating the ongoing

fishery that began in January, after

careful consideration, NMFS has

concluded that it must have some

measures in place establishing quotas

for these fisheries. Therefore, rather

than leaving the fisheries unregulated

while it addresses the Court’s remand,

NMFS is proceeding with publication of

the rule as drafted at this time. In

addition, the specifications for summer

flounder are intimately linked to the

specifications for the scup and black sea

bass fisheries, which were not part of

the litigation. All of these specifications

must be in place immediately in order

to manage effectively the recreational

fishery, to monitor the state-by-state

commercial quotas, and to restrict

landings by Federal permit holders

upon attainment of those quotas—

measures necessary to control the

overall mortality on the summer

flounder stock.

NMFS considers it a matter of the

highest urgency to address the remand

of the Court and will work with its