20550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

23 CFR Part 1340 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0002] 

RIN 2127–AL23 

Uniform Criteria for State 

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt 

Use 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

implementation date for use of the 

revised uniform criteria for State 

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use. 

With this change, States may continue 

in calendar year 2012 to use a survey 

design that was approved under the old 

uniform criteria or, at their election, use 

a survey design approved under the 

revised uniform criteria. In calendar 

year 2013, all States must use a survey 

design approved under the revised 

uniform criteria. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

5, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jin Kim, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., NCC–113, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone number: 202–366– 

1834; Email: Jin.Kim@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Discussion 

On April 1, 2011, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) published a final rule setting 

forth ‘‘Uniform Criteria for State 

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use.’’ 

76 FR 18042. That final rule amended 

the regulation establishing uniform 

criteria for designing and conducting 

State observational surveys of seat belt 

use and the procedures for obtaining 

NHTSA approval of survey designs, and 

provided a new form for reporting seat 

belt use rates to NHTSA. 

The final rule specified that beginning 

with calendar year 2012 surveys, States 

must use survey designs that have been 

approved by NHTSA as conforming to 

the revised uniform criteria. Under the 

rule, States were required to submit 

proposed survey designs by January 3, 

2012. Almost all States met this 

deadline. However, in reviewing the 

proposed survey designs, NHTSA found 

it necessary to seek clarification from 

States, in some cases several times. Due 

to the unanticipated complexity of the 

review process, only a few States have 

survey designs that have been approved 

at this time by NHTSA. 

Most States conduct seat belt use 

surveys in May and June, during the 

time of the nationally-supported seat 

belt enforcement mobilization. NHTSA 

does not believe that proposed survey 

designs will be approved in time for all 

States to train data collectors and 

conduct seat belt use surveys in May 

and June of 2012. For this reason, 

NHTSA is amending the final rule to 

allow States to conduct calendar year 

2012 seat belt use surveys using designs 

approved by NHTSA under the old 

uniform criteria or, at a State’s election 

if its new survey design has been 

approved, under the revised uniform 

criteria. Beginning in calendar year 

2013, all States must conduct a survey 

whose design satisfies and is approved 

by NHTSA under the revised uniform 

criteria. 

II. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) authorizes agencies to dispense 

with certain notice procedures for rules 

when they find ‘‘good cause’’ to do so. 

See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Specifically, the 

requirements for prior notice and 

opportunity to comment do not apply 

when the agency for good cause finds 

that those procedures are ‘‘impractical, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ 

This final rule would amend only the 

date by which States must conduct seat 

belt use surveys using the revised 

uniform criteria. NHTSA already sought 

public comment on all other aspects of 

the revised uniform criteria. See 75 FR 

4509 (Jan. 28, 2010). The earlierpublished final rule reflects the agency’s 

consideration of and response to those 

comments. See 76 FR 18042 (Apr. 1, 

2011). 

This amendment would relieve a 

burden on the States and has no safety 

impact. While most States met the 

deadline to submit proposed survey 

designs under the revised criteria, there 

has been a need for significant 

consultation during NHTSA’s review of 

these proposed designs. At this time, 

only a few States have survey designs 

that have been approved by NHTSA 

under the revised uniform criteria. 

NHTSA does not believe that proposed 

survey designs will be approved in time 

for all States to conduct seat belt use 

surveys during May and June, as is 

typical practice. Further, notice and 

comment are ‘‘impractical, unnecessary, 

or contrary to the public interest’’ given 

this timeline. This final rule would 

provide States with sufficient notice so 

that States may elect to collect data in 

May and June 2012 using either the old 

uniform criteria or the revised uniform 

criteria. 

The APA provides that rules generally 

may not take effect earlier than thirty 

(30) days after they are published in the 

Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

However, section 553(d)(1) provides 

that a substantive rule which grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction may take effect earlier. 

Today’s final rule, which relieves a 

restriction, is effective immediately 

upon publication. 

The agency has discussed the relevant 

requirements of regulatory analyses and 

notices in the underlying final rule 

published at 76 FR 18042 (Apr. 1, 2011). 

Those discussions are not affected by 

this amendment. 

Regulatory 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 contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

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 (Volume 

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

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

III. Regulatory Text 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1340 

Grant programs—transportation, 

Highway safety, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration amends 23 CFR 

part 1340 as follows: 

PART 1340—UNIFORM CRITERIA FOR 

STATE OBSERVATIONAL SURVEYS 

OF SEAT BELT USE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1340 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20551 

■ 2. Section 1340.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1340.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to State surveys of 

seat belt use beginning in calendar year 

2013 and continuing annually 

thereafter. However, a State may elect to 

conduct its calendar year 2012 seat belt 

use survey using a survey design 

approved under this part. 

Issued on: March 28, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8137 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 54 and 61 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337, 

03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket 

Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10–208; 

DA 12–298] 

Connect America Fund; A National 

Broadband Plan for Our Future; 

Establishing Just and Reasonable 

Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; 

High-Cost Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission clarifies 

certain rules. The order clarifies, but 

does not otherwise modify, the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. The petition for 

Clarification or, in the Alternative, for 

Reconsideration of Verizon is granted in 

part and dismissed in part, and the 

Petition for Reconsideration of United 

States Telecom Association is dismissed 

in part. 

DATES: Effective May 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bender, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–1469, Victoria 

Goldberg, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

(202) 418–7353. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Order in WC Docket Nos. 10– 

90, 07–135, 05–337, 03–109; GN Docket 

No. 09–51; CC Docket Nos. 01–92, 96– 

45; WT Docket No. 10–208; DA 12–298, 

released on February 27, 2012. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the 

following Internet address: http:// 

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2012/db0227/DA-12- 

298A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission delegated to the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

the authority to revise and clarify rules 

as necessary to ensure that the reforms 

adopted in the Order are properly 

reflected in the rules. In this Order, the 

Bureau acts pursuant to this delegated 

authority to revise and clarify certain 

rules, and acts pursuant to authority 

delegated to the Bureau in §§ 0.91, 

0.201(d), and 0.291 of the Commission’s 

rules to clarify certain rules. 

II. Discussion 

A. Intercarrier Compensation 

2. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission adopted a 

prospective transitional intercarrier 

compensation framework for VoIP– 

PSTN traffic. This transitional 

framework included default 

compensation rates and addressed a 

number of implementation issues, 

including explaining the scope of 

charges that local exchange carrier (LEC) 

partners of affiliated or unaffiliated 

retail VoIP providers are able to include 

in tariffs. In particular, the Commission 

determined that it was appropriate to 

adopt a ‘‘symmetric’’ framework for 

VoIP–PSTN traffic. This symmetric 

approach means that ‘‘providers that 

benefit from lower VoIP–PSTN rates 

when their end-user customers’ traffic is 

terminated to other providers’ end-user 

customers also are restricted to charging 

the lower VoIP–PSTN rates when other 

providers’ traffic is terminated to their 

end-user customers.’’ 

3. As part of its symmetric regime, the 

Commission adopted rules that ‘‘permit 

a LEC to charge the relevant intercarrier 

compensation for functions performed 

by it and/or its retail VoIP partner, 

regardless of whether the functions 

performed or the technology used 

correspond precisely to those used 

under a traditional TDM architecture.’’ 

The Commission cautioned, however, 

that ‘‘although access services might 

functionally be accomplished in 

different ways depending upon the 

network technology, the right to charge 

does not extend to functions not 

performed by the LEC or its retail VoIP 

service provider partner.’’ The 

Commission adopted this limitation to 

address concerns in the record regarding 

double billing. This limitation was 

codified as part of the VoIP–PSTN 

framework in § 51.913(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

also modified its tariffing rules in Part 

61 for competitive LECs to implement 

the VoIP symmetry rule. 

4. On February 3, 2012, YMax 

Communications Corp. (YMax) filed an 

ex parte letter seeking confirmation of 

its interpretation that ‘‘under [the 

Commission’s] new VoIP–PSTN 

‘symmetry’ rule, a LEC is performing the 

functional equivalent of ILEC access 

service, and therefore entitled to charge 

the full ‘benchmark’ rate level, 

whenever it is providing telephone 

numbers and some portion of the 

interconnection with the PSTN, and 

regardless of how or by whom the lastmile transmission is provided.’’ Stated 

differently, YMax seeks guidance from 

the Commission as to whether the 

revised rule language in Part 61, 

specifically, § 61.26(f) permits a 

competitive LEC to tariff and charge the 

full benchmark rate even if it includes 

functions that neither it nor its VoIP 

retail partner are actually providing. 

YMax asserts that the purpose of the 

Commission’s revisions to § 61.26(f) was 

to ‘‘defin[e] the minimum access 

functionality necessary in order for a 

CLEC to be allowed to collect access 

charges at the full benchmark level 

under the VoIP–PSTN symmetry rule.’’ 

We disagree. The Commission revised 

§ 61.26(f) to reflect the change in the 

tariffing process to implement the VoIP 

symmetry rule, which included 

limitations to prevent double billing. 

Interpreting the rule in the manner 

proposed by YMax could enable double 

billing. The Commission made clear in 

adopting the VoIP-symmetry rule that it 

intended to prevent double billing and 

charging for functions not actually 

provided. Indeed, § 51.913(b) expressly 

states that ‘‘[t]his rule does not permit 

a local exchange carrier to charge for 

functions not performed by the local 

exchange carrier itself or the affiliated or 

unaffiliated provider of interconnected 

VoIP service or non-interconnected 

VoIP service.’’ 

5. YMax’s letter does, however, 

highlight a potential ambiguity because 

the amended rule § 61.26(f), which is 

the tariffing provision intended to 

implement the VoIP symmetry rule, did 

not include an express cross reference to 

§ 51.913(b). Although § 51.913(b) makes 

clear that its terms apply 

notwithstanding any other Commission 

rule, to remove any ambiguity regarding 

the scope of what competitive LECs are 

permitted to assess in their tariffs, we 

amend § 61.26(f) to make clear that the 

ability to charge under the tariff is 

limited by § 51.913(b). In so doing, we 

address and reject YMax’s interpretation 

of § 61.26(f). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES