Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59319 

1Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 18, 

2007). 

2See Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0018. 

longer entitled. Respondents are 

representative payees for children ages 

15 through 17. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 982,357. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 3 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 49,118 

hours. 

3. Request for Proof(s) from Custodian 

of Records—20 CFR 404.703, 404.704, 

404.720, 404.721, 404.723, 404.725, & 

404.728—0960–0766. SSA sends records 

custodians the SSA–L707 on behalf of 

individuals who need help obtaining 

evidence of death, marriage, or divorce 

in connection with claims for benefits. 

SSA uses the information from the 

SSA–L707 to determine eligibility for 

benefits. The respondents are 

custodians including statistics and 

religious entities, coroners, funeral 

directors, attending physicians, and 

state agencies. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Type of respondents Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Total annual 

burden 

(hours) 

State or Local Government ............................................................................. 501 1 10 84 

Private Sector .................................................................................................. 99 1 10 17 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 600 101 

Faye Lipsky, 

Reports Clearance Officer, Center for Reports 

Clearance, Social Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24058 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2010– 

0124] 

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

proposed collection of information, 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can 

collect certain information from the 

public, it must receive approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Under procedures established 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must solicit public 

comment on proposed collections of 

information, including extensions and 

reinstatements of previously approved 

collections. On September 3, 2010, 

NHTSA published a request for 

comment on one collection of 

information for which it intends to seek 

OMB approval (75 FR 54217). This 

notice elaborates on some specific areas 

NHTSA is requesting comment on that 

were not mentioned in the original 

notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9826. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KilJae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., W52–232, NPO–520, 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong’s 

telephone number is (202) 493–0524. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 3, 2010, NHTSA published a 

request for comment on one collection 

of information for which it intends to 

seek OMB approval (75 FR 54217). That 

notice explained that to further 

NHTSA’s development of a national tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program required under the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 

2007,1 NHTSA is proposing a multiphased consumer research project and is 

currently requesting comment on the 

first phase of that research, which will 

consist of qualitative focus group market 

research. This notice elaborates on some 

specific areas NHTSA is requesting 

comment on that were not mentioned in 

the original notice. These areas are focus 

group location, testing for the impact of 

basing a tire fuel efficiency rating on 

rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) vs. 

rolling resistance force (RRF), and 

testing for the recognition of existing 

labeling. 

NHTSA notes that comments have 

already been sought on and a public 

meeting has already been held on a draft 

research plan for the consumer research 

that is the subject of this collection of 

information.2 The relevance and 

poignancy of stakeholders’ comments 

may be enhanced by reviewing that 

draft research plan and comments 

received in response to the draft 

research plan and public meeting. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59320 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

3RRF is the rolling resistance force measurement 

measured by a rolling resistance test procedure. 

RRC is RRF divided by the test load of the tire, 

where most test procedures specify test load as a 

percentage of the maximum load rating of the tire 

being tested. In a June 2009 notice of proposed 

rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to base the fuel 

efficiency rating on the RRF metric because such a 

rating translates more directly to the fuel required 

to move a tire. See 74 FR 29542 (June 22, 2009). 

With regard to focus group location, 

the notice indicated that NHTSA 

intended to conduct two (2) focus 

groups in three (3) cities. NHTSA plans 

to conduct the focus groups in one city 

each in the Northeast, South or 

Midwest, and the West to achieve 

geographic diversity. NHTSA is 

particularly interested in comments 

regarding whether or not the western 

location should be in California. 

In 2003, the California legislature 

adopted Assembly Bill No. 844 (AB 

844), which required the California 

Energy Commission to develop a 

comprehensive fuel efficient tire 

program. In 2009, a draft regulation was 

made public which specified testing and 

reporting requirements for 

manufacturers, described the database 

of fuel efficiency of replacement tires 

sold in California, and defined a ‘‘fuel 

efficient tire.’’ As a result of these 

regulations, if California is included, 

NHTSA wonders whether the results 

might differ from other locations 

because those consumers might be more 

exposed to the issues of fuel efficiency 

and tires than other consumers, which 

would offer potential insight into 

comprehension of tire information 

while possibly conveying consumer 

understanding that is unique to 

consumers that have been exposed to 

advanced information as compared to 

the general population. NHTSA seeks 

comments on whether focus groups 

results from California may not be 

generally applicable to a national 

population of replacement tire 

consumers. On the other hand, if the 

results were similar to other locations, 

that might indicate the difficulty in 

raising awareness of this type of 

information. 

With regard to RRC vs. RRF,3 in the 

March 30, 2010 final rule NHTSA stated 

that it was deferring the decision on 

which measurement metric was the 

appropriate metric to base the fuel 

efficiency rating upon (75 FR 15894, 

15919). Previous comments received by 

the agency were split between those 

who supported basing a fuel efficiency 

rating on RRF because it directly relates 

to the amount of fuel consumed, and 

those who supported basing a fuel 

efficiency rating on RRC because ratings 

based on RRF would tend to cluster 

small tires around high ratings and 

larger tires around low ratings. These 

commenters argued that basing a fuel 

efficiency rating on RRC would spread 

out ratings for tires available to a single 

consumer so that the consumer would 

be able to get a top-rated tire, and that 

denying consumers the ability to 

purchase a top-rated tire would 

discourage consumers. NHTSA believes 

that a rating based on RRC could only 

be used to compare tires of the same 

size and load rating. Therefore, from the 

standpoint of consumer perception, the 

agency’s main concern is that if a 

consumer is looking at fuel efficiency 

ratings across a range of different-sized 

tires, e.g., if the consumer has one 

family vehicle that requires 18-inch 

replacement tires and another family 

vehicle that requires 15-inch 

replacement tires, fuel efficiency ratings 

based on RRC would not accurately 

reflect the contribution of a tire to fuel 

consumption since RRCs for larger tires 

(with greater test loads) can be lower 

than those of smaller tires, i.e., they 

would get a higher fuel efficiency rating 

than a small tire in a rating system 

based on RRC. To assist in a decision on 

this issue, NHTSA intends to explore 

how often consumers consider different 

size tires in their purchase decisions, 

and what the perceptual implications 

are if a consumer cannot find a top-rated 

tire among the replacement tire choices 

that are available for their vehicle. 

NHTSA requests comment on whether 

there is other information NHTSA could 

explore with regard to this issue. 

Finally, NHTSA is requesting 

information on any labeling or other 

information that is currently voluntarily 

provided by tire manufacturers or tire 

retailers, on tires or otherwise. NHTSA 

intends to explore what information 

participants have seen, and how they 

recall, interpret, and apply it. This will 

assist the agency in evaluating how well 

the participants comprehend the 

information, which types of information 

are meaningful to their purchasing 

choices, and which information impacts 

their behavior. 

Issued on: September 21, 2010. 

Rebecca Pennington, 

Associate Administrator, Planning, 

Administrative and Financial Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24115 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection(s): Certification 

Procedures for Products and Parts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 

invites public comments about our 

intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew an information 

collection. The Federal Register Notice 

with a 60-day comment period soliciting 

comments on the following collection of 

information was published on June 25, 

2010, vol. 75, no. 122, page 36464. 14 

CFR part 21 prescribes certification 

standards for aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers appliances and parts. The 

information collected is used to 

determine compliance and applicant 

eligibility. The respondents are aircraft 

parts designers, manufacturers, and 

aircraft owners. Public burden for FAA 

form 8130–3 had previously been 

included with this information 

collection in error, and has been 

removed. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by October 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carla Scott on (202) 267–9895, or by 

e-mail at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0018. 

Title: Certification Procedures for 

Products and Parts. 

Form Numbers: FAA Forms 8110–12, 

8130–1, 8130–6, 8130–9, 8130–12. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: 14 CFR part 21 

prescribes certification standards for 

aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers 

appliances and parts. The information 

collected is used to determine 

compliance and applicant eligibility. 

FAA Airworthiness inspectors, 

designated inspectors, engineers, and 

designated engineers review the 

required data submittals to determine 

that aviation products and articles and 

their manufacturing facilities comply 

with the applicable requirements, and 

that the products and articles have no 

unsafe features. 

Respondents: Approximately 13,339 

aircraft parts designers, manufacturers, 

and aircraft owners. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES