Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15529

address shown below on or before May

23, 1995, to be considered in the

formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Mr. R.G. Layser, PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR),

IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20301–3062. Telefax

number (703) 602–0350. Please cite

DFARS Case 95–D006 in all

correspondence related to this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. R.G. Layser, (703) 602–0131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This proposed rule was issued to

allow the head of the contracting

activity to determine the appropriate

level to delegate authority for the

approval of second and subsequent

rounds of best and final offers for

competitive negotiated acquisitions

under other than formal source

selection.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The rule does not constitute a

significant DFARS revision within the

meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law

98–577 because this rule only changes

internal agency approval procedures.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because this proposed rule

does not impose any new

recordkeeping, information collection

requirements, or collection of

information from offerors, contractors,

or members of the public which require

the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 215

Government procurement.

Claudia L. Naugle,

Deputy Director, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Part 215 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 215

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

PART 215—CONTRACTING BY

NEGOTIATION

2. Section 215.611 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(i)(B) to read as

follows:

§ 215.611 Best and final offers.

(c)(i) * * *

(B) The head of the contracting

activity (HCA) or designee for all other

competitive negotiated acquisitions.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–7261 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 95–19; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AF–64

Consumer Information Regulations;

Fees for Course Monitoring Tires and

for Use of Traction Skid Pads

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend NHTSA’s consumer information

regulations on uniform tire quality

grading by establishing fees for the

purchase of treadwear course

monitoring tires and for the use of the

traction skid pads at NHTSA’s Uniform

Tire Quality Grading Test Facility in

San Angelo, Texas.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before May 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice numbers above

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours

are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590. (202–366–2830).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

203 of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 directed the

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe

standards establishing ‘‘a uniform

quality grading system for motor vehicle

tires.’’ Those standards are found at 49

CFR 575.104. For the purpose of aiding

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.

The uniform tire quality grading

standards require treadwear

performance to be evaluated on a

specific roadway course, approximately

400 miles in length, which was

established by NHTSA in the vicinity of

Goodfellow Air Force Base in San

Angelo, Texas. The course is designed

to produce treadwear rates that are

generally representative of those

encountered by tires in public use. The

standards require manufacturers to

correct the projected mileage obtained

for tested tires to account for

environmental and other variations that

occur during testing on the course. This

is done by comparing the performance

of the tested tires to that of course

monitoring tires placed on a vehicle that

is part of the same convoy as the

vehicles on which the tires being tested

are placed. The course monitoring tires

are specially manufactured under

controlled conditions for NHTSA so that

they can be used as a standard for

grading the tires being tested. Section

575.104(e)(ii) of the standards states that

‘‘the course monitoring tires are made

available by the NHTSA at Goodfellow

Air Force Base, San Angelo, Tex., for

purchase by any persons conducting

tests at the test course.’’

The uniform tire quality grading

standards also require that tire traction

be ‘‘evaluated on skid pads that are

established, and whose severity is

monitored, by the NHTSA * * *.’’ 49

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

in the standards, these test pads are

paved with asphalt and concrete

surfaces that have specified lockedwheel traction coefficients when

evaluated in a manner prescribed in the

standards. Two of these traction skid

pads have been constructed at NHTSA’s

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test

Facility in San Angelo. This facility also

includes an instrumented vehicle and

test trailer, and maintenance support

equipment. In addition to this

government test facility, traction skid

pads have been constructed at several

commercial facilities. These include the

Transportation Research Center’s

facility in East Liberty, Ohio, Juan Lopez

in Laredo, Texas (formerly the Uniroyal

Proving Grounds), Firestone’s facility in

Fort Stockton, Texas, General Tire’s Test

Track in Uvalde, Texas, and the

Smithers Transportation Test Center in

Pecos, Texas. For the purpose of

evaluating tire traction, manufacturers

are not restricted to the use of the

traction skid pads at the government

facility in San Angelo, and may use

those at any commercial facility.

The Department of Transportation’s

Office of Inspector General (OIG)

recently completed an audit of NHTSA’s
15530 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test

Facility in San Angelo. As a result of

this audit, the OIG concluded that

NHTSA was not recovering the full cost

of the course monitoring tires that it

sells at San Angelo and was not

charging a user fee for the use of the

traction skid pads at that facility,

contrary to the requirements of Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular A–25.

OMB Circular A–25 establishes

Federal policy regarding fees assessed

for Government services and for the 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.’’

For the purpose of determining the

amount of user charges to assess, the

Circular states that ‘‘user charges will be

sufficient to recover the full cost to the

Federal Government * * * of providing

the service, resource, or good when the

Government is acting in its capacity as

sovereign.’’ Full cost is defined in the

Circular as ‘‘all direct and indirect costs

to any part of the Federal Government

of providing a good, resource, or

service * * *.’’ The Circular further

provides that when the Government is

not acting in its capacity as sovereign,

‘‘user charges will be based on market

prices * * *.’’

In selling course monitoring tires to

manufacturers, the government is acting

in its capacity as sovereign, because the

manufacturers have no practical

alternative means of acquiring tires with

a specific base course wear rate that

must be used in grading the treadwear

of the tires they are testing. Before it was

audited by the OIG, NHTSA was

charging $304.50 for each course

monitoring tire that it sold. In its audit

report, the OIG noted that this amount

was not sufficient to recover the full

cost incurred by the government in

furnishing these tires. In order to

recover this full cost, NHTSA raised the

charge for each course monitoring tire to

$379.00 in January, 1995. Through this

notice, NHTSA is proposing to formally

establish $379.00 as the fee for each

course monitoring tire that it sells. This

amount was derived by performing the

following calculation for the 700 course

monitoring tires that are purchased

annually by NHTSA:

Purchase price of course monitoring tires ............................. $175,000

General facility costs relating to

tires ......................................... 3,400

Warehouse storage fees ............. 24,000

Salaries relating to tires ............ 29,825

Testing fees to establish base

course wear rate for tires ....... 32,800

Total .................................... 265,025

Number of tires purchased=

700

$265,025/700 = $378.61 cost

per tire.

Because manufacturers are not

required to use the traction skid pads at

NHTSA’s San Angelo facility for the

purpose of meeting the tire traction

grading requirements of 49 CFR

575.104(d), and may use any of the

several commercial facilities that are

available for that purpose, the

government is not acting as sovereign in

making the San Angelo facility available

for traction tests. Accordingly, the

government may charge a market rate

for the use of the traction pads. Based

on an agency review of the rates charged

by commercial facilities, NHTSA

proposes to assess a user charge of $288

per day for the use of the traction skid

pads at San Angelo. While not

exceeding market rates, such a charge

would be sufficient for NHTSA to

recover the costs that can be allocated

to industry use of its traction skid pads.

Those costs are calculated as follows,

based on an equivalent of 360 days of

industry use in 1993:

Skid pad calibration expenses .. $ 6,210

General facility costs relating to

skid pads ................................ 7,140

Depreciable items (skid system,

water truck, air compressor,

skid track, tractor sweeper,

equipment, buildings) ............ 65,904

Salaries relating to skid pads .... 24,375

Total .................................... 103,629

$103,629/360 days industry use

= $287.86 cost per day.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal

Regulatory Planning and Review) and

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposal was not reviewed under

E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed this

proposal and determined that it is not

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, NHTSA has evaluated

the effects of this action on small

entities. Based upon this evaluation, I

certify that the proposed amendment

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Motor vehicle and tire

manufacturers and tire brand owners

typically would not qualify as small

entities. This amendment would affect

small businesses, small organizations,

and small governmental units to the

extent that these entities purchase

vehicles and tires. However, because the

user fees proposed in this amendment

could be spread across a manufacturer’s

entire production, the amendment

would have a negligible cost impact on

vehicles and tires. For these reasons,

vehicle manufacturers, small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental units that purchase

motor vehicles would not be

significantly affected by the proposed

user fees. Accordingly, no regulatory

flexibility analysis has been prepared.

3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

the proposed rule would not have

sufficient Federalism implications to

warrant preparation of a Federalism

Assessment. No State laws would be

affected.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has considered the

environmental implications of this

proposed rule in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 and determined that the proposed

rule would not significantly affect the

human environment.

5. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have

any retroactive effect. Under section

103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30111),

whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard is in effect, a state may not

adopt or maintain a safety standard

applicable to the same aspect of

performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard. Section 105 of the

Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a

procedure for judicial review of final

rules establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

Public Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15531

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. The NHTSA will

continue to file relevant information as

it becomes available in the docket after

the closing date, and it is recommended

that interested persons continue to

examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor

vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber

and rubber products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

agency proposes to amend § 575.104,

Uniform tire quality grading standards,

in Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations at part 575 as follows:

PART 575—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 575

would continue to read as follows:

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

30123; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. A new appendix D would be added

to § 575.104, to read as follows:

§ 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading

standards.

* * * * *

Appendix D—User Fees

1. Course monitoring tires: A fee of $379.00

will be assessed for each course monitoring

tire purchased from NHTSA at Goodfellow

Air Force Base, San Angelo, Tex. This fee is

based upon the direct and indirect costs

attributable to: (a) The purchase of course

monitoring tires by NHTSA, (b) a pro rata

allocation of salaries and general facility

costs associated with maintenance of the

tires, (c) warehouse storage fees for the tires,

and (d) testing fees paid by NHTSA to

establish the base course wear rate for the

tires.

2. Use of Government traction skid pads:

A fee of $288.00 will be assessed for each day

that the traction skid pads at Goodfellow Air

Force Base, San Angelo, Tex. are used. This

fee is based upon the direct and indirect

costs attributable to: (a) Depreciation on

facilities and equipment comprising or used

in conjunction with the traction skid pads

(i.e., skid system, water truck, air

compressor, skid track, tractor sweeper,

equipment, buildings), (b) the calibration of

the traction skid pads, and (c) a pro rata

allocation of salaries and office operating

expenses associated with maintenance of the

traction skid pads.

3. Fee payments shall be by check, draft,

money order, or Electronic Funds Transfer

System made payable to the Treasurer of the

United States.

4. The fees set forth in this appendix

continue in effect until adjusted by the

Administrator of NHTSA. The Administrator

reviews the fees set forth in this appendix

and, if appropriate, adjusts them by rule at

least every 2 years.

Issued on: March 21, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–7351 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P