[Federal Register: August 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 44206-44208]
[DOCID:fr07au07-105]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56181; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Amend the Gross FOCUS Fee

August 1, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 27, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. On August 1,
2007, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
NYSE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the NYSE under section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule

change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 deleted a sentence in the statutory basis
section of Exhibit 1 to the proposed rule change that was mistakenly
included in the proposal and amended the Fee Schedule in Exhibit 5
to reference the file number of this proposal.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to reduce its gross FOCUS (Financial and
Operational Combined Uniform Single Report) fee by 75% as of January 1,
2008. In addition, following the closing of the proposed consolidation
of the member firm regulatory functions of the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation''), the Exchange will transfer 75% of the gross FOCUS fees
paid by member organizations for the remainder of 2007 to the resultant
combined self-regulatory organization, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web
site (http://www.nyse.com), at the principal office of the NYSE, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On November 28, 2006, NYSE Regulation and NASD announced a plan to
consolidate their member regulation operations into a combined
organization that will be the sole U.S. private-sector provider of
member firm regulation for securities firms that conduct business with
the public (the ``Transaction''). The objective of the Transaction is
to increase consistency and efficiency of member firm regulation,
including examination, enforcement, and rule making, for the benefit of
individual investors and overall market integrity. It is also an
objective of the Transaction to reduce the regulatory and financial
burdens placed on member firms as a result of duplicate self-regulatory
structures.
    The Exchange charges its member organizations a fee of $0.42 per
$1,000 of gross revenues as reported by each member firm in its FOCUS
report,\6\ subject to minimum annual fees of $180.00 for member
organizations who do not conduct a public business, $1,000.00 for
introducing firms, and $2,000.00 for carrying firms and specialists.
These fees are imposed on all Exchange member organizations other than
those members for whom another self-regulatory organization is the
designated examining authority (``DEA'') under Rule 17d-1 \7\ of the
Act. The Exchange allocates the FOCUS fees to NYSE Regulation to fund
its performance of its regulatory activities with respect to member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FOCUS (Securities Exchange Act Form X-17A-5) is an acronym
for Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report. The
report is filed periodically with the Commission pursuant to Rule
17a-5 under the Act.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a substantial proportion of these regulatory activities will be
performed by FINRA after the Transaction, the Exchange has agreed with
the NASD that, subject to the closing of the Transaction, 75% of the
gross FOCUS fees paid to the Exchange during the remainder of 2007
after the closing of the Transaction will be remitted to FINRA. The
Exchange believes that this apportionment of the FOCUS fee revenues is
consistent with the relative regulatory activities that will be
performed by NYSE Regulation and FINRA respectively after the
Transaction. NYSE Regulation and the NASD have agreed upon this
transitional period in which the Exchange remits FOCUS fee revenue to
FINRA as a matter of administrative convenience to avoid the need for
substantial adjustment of member firm billing arrangements mid-year.
Assuming that the Transaction has closed, commencing January 1, 2008,
the Exchange will reduce its FOCUS fees, including the minimum fees, by
75%, but will charge these fees to all members notwithstanding that
they will be members of both the Exchange and FINRA.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of section 6 of the Act \8\ in general and furthers
the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\ thereunder
because it changes a fee imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \12\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is July
27, 2007. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is August 1, 2007.
For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the
Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on August 1, 2007, the date on which the NYSE submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-70 and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15313 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ  08023

CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested

April 22, 2008

Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 	EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

	DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

	PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

	January 2008 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office:

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during January 2008. We will continue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Pinder

SET Environmental Coordinator

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures

Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029


1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR)

OMB 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION A. JUSTIFICATION 1. Identification of the Information Collection a) Title: Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, Import, Recycling, Transshipment and Feedstock Use of Ozone Depleting Substances ( Critical Use Exemption)

EPA Number: 2179.02 b) Short Characterization:

With this Information Collection Request ( ICR), the Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR) is seeking permission to require the submission of data from regulated industries to the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and to require recordkeeping of key documents to ensure compliance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ( Protocol) and the Clean Air Act. Entities applied to EPA for a critical use exemption that would allow for the continued production and import of methyl bromide after the phaseout in January 2005. EPA used the data submitted by users of methyl bromide to create a nomination of critical uses that was submitted to the Montreal Protocol's Ozone Secretariat for review by an international panel of experts. The uses authorized internationally by the Parties to the Protocol have been made available in the U. S. through a regulatory action completed by EPA on December 23, 2004. This ICR seeks to characterize the burden associated with producing, importing, distributing, and using critically exempted methyl bromide as described in the final rule at 40 CFR Part 82. A proposed rule seeking comment and a final rule implementing the deregulatory action associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements outlined in this document was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2004( 69 FR 52366) and on December 23, 2004 ( 69 FR 76982) respectively. However, the Agency mistakenly did not have an ICR approved by OMB during the development of the rulemaking and is seeking OMB approval for the burden hours associated with the prior rulemaking this time. Although the Agency published the ICR information with the proposed rule and received and reconciled comments on the burden of the rulemaking, the appropriate paperwork had not been resubmitted to OMB for their consideration. At the advice of OMB, in conjunction with approval for a regular ICR, the Agency has received approval for an emergency ICR ( routed 2 separately, see EPA ICR 2179.01) to allow for reporting of data prior to approval of the regular ICR.

2. Need For, and Use Of, the Collection a) Authority for the Collection This information collection is authorized under section 604 ( d)( 6) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( Public Law No. 105 277; October 21, 1998).

b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The reported data will enable EPA to:

1) Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with Section 604( d)( 6) as amended in 1998; 2) Maintain compliance with the Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the production of ozone depleting substances; 3) Analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions are used in accordance with requirements included in today's proposed rulemaking.

3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria a) Nonduplication All the information requested from respondents under this ICR is authorized by statute ( CAA Section 114 and 604 ( d)( 6)) and is not available from other sources because it is proprietary or sensitive information.

b) Public Notice EPA will provide public notice and comment regarding this ICR with the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. This notice is being submitted to the Federal Register concurrent with submission of today's ICR request to OMB.

c) Consultations EPA has held several consultations, in the form of stakeholder meetings, on the options for the proposed rulemaking as well as the options for reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Copies of transcripts from two of the six sessions held during the summer of 2003 are available at EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone. EPA also received comments on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements from stakeholders during the notice and comment period ( see docket OAR 2003 0230 for comments and response to comments). 3 d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The U. S. government is required to report data to the Ozone Secretariat on an annual basis. EPA is requesting quarterly reporting from entities such as producers and importers of methyl bromide in order to monitor the likelihood of compliance throughout the year. These entities typically prepare quarterly reports and prefer to report smaller data sets to EPA and not leave the entire task to the end of the year. EPA is requesting annual reporting from these entities, such as distributors and fumigation companies, because they typically have less regulatory compliance infrastructure and/ or are less familiar with Protocol reporting requirements.

e) General Guidelines This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines found at 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2).

f) Confidentiality EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for any of the information they submit. Information claimed confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR part 2, subpart b, and will be disclosed only if EPA determines that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to the respondents ( 40 CFR 2.203).

g) Sensitive Information Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance with procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 2.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents producers, importers, distributors, and custom applicators of methyl bromide as well as users of methyl bromide who are farmers of vegetable crops and companies that store agricultural commodities. The appropriate North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for these entities are: 4 TABLE I: NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATED ENTITIES Category NAICS code SIC code Agricultural production Storage Uses Distributors and Applicators Producers and Importers 1112 Vegetable and Melon farming 1113 Fruit and Nut Tree Farming 1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 115114 Postharvest Crop activities ( except Cotton Ginning) 311211 Flour Milling 311212 Rice Milling 493110 General Warehousing and Storage 493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage 115112 Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 325310 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 0171 Berry Crops 0172 Grapes 0173 Tree Nuts 0175 Deciduous Tree Fruits ( except apple orchards and farms) 0179 Fruit and Tree Nuts, NEC 0181 Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery Products 0831 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products 2041 Flour and Other Grain Mill Products 2044 Rice Milling 4221 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage 4225 General Warehousing and Storage 0721 Crop Planting, Cultivation, and Protection 2879 Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC 5 b) Information Requested i) Data Items EPA is requesting that entities provide the following information to the Agency:

· Producers and importers · Quarterly: number and type of expended and unexpended critical use allowances ( CUAs); · Quarterly: number and type of expended and unexpended critical stock allowances ( CSAs); · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide sold directly to critical uses ( in kilograms); · Annually: the total amount and type of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves or on behalf of a third party ( in kilograms);

· Distributors · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide bought( in kilograms); · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide sold directly to critical uses ( in kilograms); · Annually: the total amount and type of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves or on behalf of a third party ( in kilograms);

· Fumigators and applicators · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide bought( in kilograms); · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide sold directly to critical uses ( in kilograms); · Annually: the total amount and type of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves or on behalf of a third party ( in kilograms);

( B) Recordkeeping · Producers and importers · Self certification form for each sale that indicates the buyer will only sell/ use the methyl bromide for approved critical uses; · Order forms and invoices for methyl bromide; · Records to be kept for 3 years.

· Distributors · Self certification form for each sale that indicates the buyer will only sell/ use the methyl bromide for approved critical uses; 6 · Order forms and invoices for methyl bromide; · Records to be kept for 3 years.

· Fumigators and applicators · Self certification form for each sale that indicates the end user will only use/ sell the methyl bromide for approved critical uses; · Order forms and invoices for methyl bromide; · Records to be kept for 3 years.

5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management a) Agency Activities · All reported data will be reviewed by EPA.

· EPA will ensure that compliance has been maintained with U. S. production and consumption levels of exempted material at the national and sector levels.

· EPA will report annually to the Ozone Secretariat, through the U. S. Department of State, on U. S. compliance with allowable production and consumption levels.

· EPA will adjust future amounts of exempted materials requested based on actual use data and levels of material in inventory.

· The data will then be stored.

b) Collection and Methodology and Management Data will be tracked by industry and will be provided to EPA on a quarterly and/ or annual basis on forms to be provided by the Agency on EPA's website ( forms will be available pending approval of emergency ICR). EPA will use our electronic tracking system to update company specific and overall U. S. compliance with production, consumption, and use. Confidential business information will be stored in appropriately controlled areas.

c) Small Entity Flexibility The information collection is authorized by statute under section 604 of the Clean Air Act and is required in order to ensure U. S. compliance with international treaty obligations under the Montreal Protocol. Bearing in mind, U. S. obligations, EPA designed a system that would remove almost all burden from the end users of methyl bromide, some of whom are small entities, and placed it instead on chemical manufacturers, distributors and applicators, who are not small entities. This ICR is related to the collection of information for an 7 exemption program. Participation in this system is therefore voluntary and constitutes a benefit. However, in order to minimize the administrative burden on end users of methyl bromide participating in this system, some of whom may be small entities, EPA created a regulatory framework that places minimal burden on these entities. EPA created a system that requires end users to sign a short form ( 1 2 pages in length) certifying that they are buying the exempted material for an allowable use and will use it accordingly. The form would be kept by the supplier, not the end user.

d) Collection Schedule The information is to be submitted on an annual or quarterly basis ( see section 5 a) to EPA beginning in the first quarter of 2005 and continuing for the life of the exemption.

6) Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection a) Estimating the Burden The basis of the analysis is the identification of the steps involved in understanding and complying with the new requirements. EPA drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same entities in order to derive estimates of the burden associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

b) Estimating the Respondent Cost To determine respondent costs, EPA used an hourly industry wage rate of $ 80 per hour. Some activities, such as rule familiarization, are in fact one time activities therefore total respondent burden hours indicated in Table II ( below) may be overestimated.

TABLE II RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS PER YEAR Collection Activity No. of Respondents Total No. of Responses Hours per Response Total Hours Rule Familiarization 54 54 4 216 Data Compilation ( quarterly basis) 4 16 4 64 Data Compilation ( annual basis) 50 50 8 400 Data Reporting ( quarterly basis) 4 16 .5 8 8 Data Reporting ( annual basis) 50 50 .5 25 Reporting on Allowance Trading Activities 4 16 .5 8 Self Certification Activities by Producers, Importers, and Distributors 54 100 .25 25 Self Certification Activities by End Users 2,000 2,500 .25 625 Total Burden Hours    1,371 There are no capital and operating costs associated this action.

TABLE III CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Activity No of Entities Affected Estimated Annual Cost per entity Total Estimated Annual Cost TOTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 0 0 0 c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The basis of this analysis is the identification of the steps involved in distributing critical use allowances, reviewing reporting data, submitting data to the Ozone Secretariat on U. S. compliance, and developing guidance for regulated entities. Each hour of extramural ( contractor) time is valued at $ 80.00 per hour including overhead and fringe. Each hour of Agency time is valued using the 2003 OPM annual base pay table divided by 2,080 to estimate the hourly wage and then multiplied by 1.6, the standard government benefits multiplier. The hourly wage rates are as flows: for EPA managerial staff the rate is $ 65.49, for technical staff ( GS 13 level) the value is $ 47.12, and for clerical staff ( GS 5 level) is $ 18.03. The data in table IV reflects total annual Agency effort.

TABLE IV AGENCY BURDEN HOURS Hours per Response No. of Responses Managerial Hours per Response Technical Hours per Response Clerical Hours per Response Extramural Hours per Response Total Agency Hours/ Year Write/ revise reporting forms n/ a 25 25 0 150 200 Process annual reports 50 .5 1.5 0 1 150 9 Process quarterly reports 16 .5 1.5 0 1 48 Determine historic baseline 16 .5 1 0 0 24 Distribute allowances annually 4 1 5 0 4 40 Report to the Ozone Secretariat 1 0 10 0 0 10 TOTAL 27.5 44 0 156 472 d) Estimating the Respondent Universe EPA was able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon experience regulating the same entities, except for end users of methyl bromide, as we do under the phaseout program. EPA believes that there are 4 producers and importers of methyl bromide who report quarterly and up to 50 distributors/ applicators of methyl bromide who report annually. EPA was able estimate the number of potential end users based on self reported data from those entities who requested an exemption; there are approximately 2,000 end users. Thus the total number of respondents is estimated to be 2,054 ( 2,000 plus 50 plus 4).

e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables i) The burden hour portion of the respondent reporting burden and operating/ capital costs are estimated in Tables II and III respectively. The dollar estimate associated with this burden is displayed in Table V below.

TABLE V RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Response No of Responses Hours/ Response Cost/ Hour Total Cost Reporting 1,186 1.07 $ 80 $ 101,522 Recordkeeping  producers, importers, distributors, fumigators 54 .25 $ 80 $ 1,080 Self certification  producers, importers, distributors, end users 2,600 .25 $ 80 $ 52,000 Total $ 154,602 ii) Agency burden is reported in Table IV. The dollar value associated with this burden is displayed below in Table VI. 10 TABLE VI ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Managerial Hours Annual Total @ $ 65.49 Technical Hours Annual Total @ $ 47.12 Clerical Hours Annual Total @ $ 18.03 Extramural Hours Annual Total $ 80.00 Total Agency Hours per Year Total Agency Costs per Year Hours/ Response 70 170 0 232 472 $ 31,155 f) Reasons for Change in Burden Amending current regulations to create exemption program.

g) Burden Statement Table II presents the average annual respondent burden. For respondents affected by the methyl bromide critical use exemption, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is as follows: 4 producers and importers at a total of 103.5 hours per year for this group of entities; 50 distributors and applicators at 642.5 hours per year; 2,000 end users at 625 hours per year. The total industry burden hours per year are therefore 1,371 under the option finalized by EPA. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.49 hours per response ( 1371 hours divided by 2,802 responses). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2005 0037 which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, 11 Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OAR 2005 0037 and OMB Control Number 2060 0564 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This Section is not applicable.


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6631-6633]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-24]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0119; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-304-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 Airplanes and Model ERJ 190 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100
SE, -100 STD, and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100
LR, and -100 STD airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising
the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to prohibit
the flightcrew from moving the throttle into the forward thrust range
immediately after applying the thrust reverser. This proposed AD would
add additional airplanes to the applicability and would require the AFM
revision for those additional airplanes. For certain airplanes, this
proposed AD would also require installing new, improved full-authority
digital engine-control (FADEC) software. This proposed AD results from
a report that, during landing, the thrust reverser may not re-stow
completely if the throttle lever is moved into the forward thrust range
immediately after the thrust reverser is applied. We are proposing this
AD to prevent the flightcrew from performing a takeoff with a partially
deployed thrust reverser, which could result in reduced controllability
of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343--CEP 12.225, Sao
Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0119;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-304-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 22, 2006, we issued AD 2006-11-15, amendment 39-14619 (71 FR
30577, May 30, 2006), for all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 SE, -100 STD, and -100 SU
airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100 LR, and -100 STD airplanes.
That AD requires revising the Limitations section of the airplane
flight manual (AFM) to prohibit the flightcrew from moving the throttle
into the forward thrust range immediately after applying the thrust
reverser. That AD resulted from a report that, during landing, the
thrust reverser may not re-stow completely if the throttle lever is
moved into the forward thrust range immediately after the thrust
reverser is applied. We issued that AD to prevent the flightcrew from
performing a takeoff with a partially deployed thrust reverser, which
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2006-11-15 explains that we consider the
requirements ``interim action'' and were considering further
rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed
necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. The
Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC), which is
the airworthiness authority for Brazil, has determined that new,
improved full-authority digital engine-control (FADEC) software must be
installed on certain airplanes to adequately address the unsafe
condition.
    Since we issued AD 2006-11-15, we have type certificated EMBRAER
Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ
190-200 IGW, -200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes for operation in the U.S.
Therefore, the AFM revision required by AD 2006-11-15 should also apply
to those additional airplanes.

Relevant Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued the following service bulletins:
     EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-73-0003, Revision 01, dated
September 4, 2006, for Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 SE, -100 STD, -100
SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes;
     EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-73-0005, dated November 9,
2006, for a Model ERJ 190-200 LR airplane; and
     EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-73-0009, Revision 01, dated
April 23, 2007, for Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100 LR, -100 STD, -200 IGW,
-200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes.
    The service bulletins describe procedures for installing new,
improved FADEC software having a certain version or higher.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The ANAC mandated
the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive
2006-03-02R1, effective February 27, 2007; and Brazilian airworthiness
directive 2006-03-03R1, effective November 9, 2007; to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    These airplanes are manufactured in Brazil and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the ANAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. We have examined the ANAC's findings,
evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is
necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
    This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-11-15 and would retain the
requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also add Model
ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200
IGW, -200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes to the applicability and would
require the AFM revision for those additional airplanes. This proposed
AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the
service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average
labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this
proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                          Cost per      U.S.-
              Action                 Work hours          Parts            airplane    registered    Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision (required by AD 2006-            1  None.................          $80           76          $6,080
 11-15).
AFM revision (new proposed action)            1  None.................           80           57           4,560
Software installation (new                    1  The manufacturer                80          133          10,640
 proposed action).                                states that it will
                                                  supply the required
                                                  software to
                                                  operators at no cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII,

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General requirements.'' Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14619 (71 FR 30577, May 30, 2006) and adding the
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

 ?>Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0119; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-304-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 6,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-11-15.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100
SE, -100 STD, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes; and
Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100 LR, -100 STD, -200 IGW, -200 LR, and -
200 STD airplanes; certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from report that, during landing, the thrust
reverser may not re-stow completely if the throttle lever is moved
into the forward thrust range immediately after the thrust reverser
is applied. We are issuing this AD to prevent the flightcrew from
performing a takeoff with a partially deployed thrust reverser,
which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-11-15

Airplane Flight Manual Revision

    (f) For Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 SE, -100 STD, and -100 SU
airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100 LR, -100 STD airplanes:
Within 7 days after June 14, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-11-
15), revise the Limitations section of the EMBRAER 170/190 Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) to include the following statement. This may be
done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. Factory-installation
or installation of the applicable software required by paragraph (h)
of this AD terminates the AFM revision required by this paragraph.
    ``After applying thrust reverser, do not move the throttle back
to the forward thrust range, unless the REV icon on the EICAS is
shown in amber or green.''

    Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (f) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

New Requirements of This AD

AFM Revision for New Airplanes

    (g) For Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes;
and Model ERJ 190-200 IGW, -200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes: Within
14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations
section of the EMBRAER 170/190 AFM to include the following
statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the
AFM. Factory-installation or installation of the applicable software
required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the AFM revision
required by this paragraph.
    ``After applying thrust reverser, do not move the throttle back
to the forward thrust range, unless the REV icon on the EICAS is
shown in amber or green.''

    Note 2: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (g) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

Software Installation

    (h) Within 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, install the full-authority digital engine-control (FADEC)
software specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this
AD, as applicable. Installing the applicable software terminates the
applicable AFM revision required by paragraph (f) or (g) this AD.
    (1) For Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 SE, -100 STD, -100 SU, -200
LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 170-73-0003, Revision 01, dated September 4, 2006: Install
engine FADEC software version 5.30 or higher in accordance with the
service bulletin.
    (2) For the Model ERJ 190-200 LR airplane identified in EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 190-73-0005, dated November 9, 2006: Install engine
FADEC software version 5.10 or higher in accordance with the service
bulletin.
    (3) For Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100 LR, -100 STD, -200 IGW, -200
LR, and -200 STD airplanes identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin
190-73-0009, Revision 01, dated April 23, 2007: Install engine FADEC
software version 5.20 or higher in accordance with the service
bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Related Information

    (j) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-03-02R1, effective
February 27, 2007; and Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-03-
03R1, effective November 9, 2007; also address the subject of this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-1990 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4914-4917]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2141]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA 2011-0005]
RIN 2127-AK06

Consumer Information Regulations; Fees for Use of Traction Skid
Pads

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document amends NHTSA's consumer information regulations
on uniform tire quality grading standards by updating the fees
currently charged for use of the traction skid pads at NHTSA's San
Angelo Test Facility, formerly called the Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Test Facility, in San Angelo, Texas, and by eliminating fees for course
monitoring tires, which are no longer supplied by NHTSA. This rule
updates the fees in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-25, which governs fees assessed for Government services and
use of Government goods or resources.

DATES: Today's final rule is effective April 2, 2012.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received by March 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For program issues: Mr. George Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues: Ms. Carrie Gage, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 directs the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe standards
establishing ``a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle
tires.'' 49 U.S.C. 30123. Those standards are found at 49 CFR 575.104.
To aid 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. See 49 CFR 575.104(a).
    The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104,
state that tire traction is ``evaluated on skid pads that are
established, and whose severity is monitored, by the NHTSA both for its
compliance testing and for that of regulated persons.'' 49 CFR
575.104(f)(1). As further described in the standards, the test pads are
paved with asphalt and concrete surfaces that have specified locked
wheel traction coefficients when evaluated in a manner prescribed in
the standards. The traction skid pads are located at NHTSA's San Angelo
Test Facility. 49 CFR 575.104, App. B. Several commercial facilities
also have traction skid pads.
    The current fees charged for use of the traction skid pads at the
San Angelo Test Facility, as well as fees charged for course monitoring
tires, were established by final rule published in the Federal Register
on August 2, 1995. See 60 FR 39269 (Aug. 2, 1995).\1\ Pursuant to
Appendix D to 49 CFR 575.104, the fees charged to manufacturers for use
of the Government traction skid pads continue in effect until adjusted
by the Administrator of NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The August 2, 1995 final rule responded to a Department of
Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit of NHTSA's
facility in San Angelo in which the OIG concluded that NHTSA was not
charging a user fee for the use of the traction skid pads at the
facility and was not recovering the full cost of the course
monitoring tires that it sold at San Angelo, contrary to OMB
Circular A-25. See 60 FR 39269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    The NPRM proposed to update, in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, the

fee charged to manufacturers for use of the agency's traction skid pads
at the San Angelo Test Facility.\2\ It also proposed to remove
provisions concerning the fees charged for course monitoring tires, as
NHTSA no longer supplies these tires for purchase by manufacturers.
Based on NHTSA's assessment using a ``market price'' analysis, the
agency proposed to update the fees for use of the facility from $34.00
an hour, established in 1995, to $125.00 an hour, which reflected the
agency's assessment of the current market price for use of traction
skid pads. NHTSA received no public comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 76 FR 2309 (Jan. 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As NHTSA noted in the NPRM, OMB Circular A-25 establishes Federal
policy regarding fees assessed for Government services and for 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.'' According to
the Circular, a ``special benefit'' accrues and a user charge is
assessed when a Government service ``is performed at the request of or
for the convenience of the recipient, and is beyond the services
regularly received by other members of the same industry or group or by
the general public.'' Manufacturer use of NHTSA's testing facility is a
special benefit because use of the facility is beyond the services
regularly received by the industry or the general public.\3\
Accordingly, NHTSA assesses a user charge for the use of the traction
skid pads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While there is a public benefit in making available a
standardized tire grading facility for manufacturer use, the public
benefits are incidental to the special benefits derived by the
manufacturers. According to Circular A-25, when the public obtains a
benefit as a necessary consequence of an agency's provision of
special benefits to an identifiable recipient, an agency should seek
to recover the applicable fee from the identifiable recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of assessing user charges, the Circular requires
that, when the Government is acting in its capacity as sovereign, user
charges be sufficient to recover the full cost to the Government of
providing the good or service. When the Government is not acting as
sovereign, however, user charges are to be based on market prices. The
Government acts in its capacity as sovereign when it uses powers over
which it has a monopoly. See e.g., U.S. v. Reyes, 87 F.3d 676, 681 (5th
Cir. 1996). The Government may act in a sovereign capacity, for
example, when it is the only source of a good or service, such as where
the Government issues a license. See National Park Service--Special
Park Use Fees, B-307319, *6 (Aug. 23, 2007).
    The agency is not acting in its capacity as sovereign in making the
San Angelo Test Facility available for traction testing by
manufacturers. That facility serves primarily for NHTSA's own
verification testing of manufacturers' tires. As NHTSA recently stated
with regard to the UTQGS regulations, manufacturers are not restricted
to the use of the traction skid pads at the government facility in San
Angelo. Rather, manufacturers may test their tires wherever they
choose. See 75 FR 15894, 15913 (March 30, 2010). Because NHTSA's own
verification tests are conducted at the San Angelo Test Facility, tire
manufacturers often choose to do so as well.
    Pursuant to Circular A-25, ```Market price' means the price for a
good, resource, or service that is based on competition in open
markets, and creates neither a shortage nor a surplus of the good,
resource, or service.'' Where there is substantial competitive demand
for a good, resource, or service, the market price is determined by
commercial practice, for example, by competitive bidding, or by
reference to the prevailing price of the same or similar good,
resources, or services, adjusted to reflect demand, level of service
and quality of the good or service.
    As NHTSA explained in the NPRM, to determine the appropriate market
price for use of the San Angelo Test Facility, the agency surveyed
several commercial facilities with traction skid pads available for
public use. Prices for the hourly use of traction skid pads ranged from
approximately $115 per hour to approximately $200 per hour. From its
own experience, NHTSA believes that discounted rates may be available
based on volume use or advance planning. As described in the NPRM,
NHTSA believes it is appropriate to take the availability of discounts
into account in arriving at a determination of market rate. In the
NPRM, NHTSA took a conservative approach, proposing to set the rate for
use of the traction skid pads at the lower end of this range--$125 per
hour. NHTSA specifically sought comments regarding whether our proposed
rate for hourly use of the traction skid pads at the San Angelo Test
Facility accurately reflects the market price for such services. As
noted above, NHTSA received no comments on the proposal.

III. Final Rule

    NHTSA continues to believe that a fee of $125.00 per hour for use
of the traction skid pads at the San Angelo Test Facility accurately
reflects the current market price of such services. Accordingly, in the
absence of comments, this document adopts the agency's proposal by
updating the fees to $125.00 an hour. As proposed in the NPRM, this
document also removes provisions concerning fees charged for course
monitoring tires.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this regulatory action under
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking action was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The
rulemaking has also been determined not to be significant under DOT's
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    Based on the type of fees and the anticipated use of the test
track, NHTSA believes that the costs of the final rule will be minimal
and do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation. The rule
will increase fees charged to private manufacturers for use of a
government facility to prevailing market rates. Manufacturers have a
choice as to whether to use this government facility or a private
commercial facility. As a result, this action does not involve any
substantial public interest or controversy. Furthermore, NHTSA
anticipates that any impact on the sale price of tires would be
minimal, because an increase in testing fees would likely be
distributed across a manufacturer's sales volume. NHTSA does not
anticipate any substantial effect on State and local governments or on
a major transportation safety program.

B. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has evaluated this final rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and has determined that it will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996).
NHTSA believes

that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Tire manufacturers are not small
entities. The amendments will affect businesses that conduct contract
traction testing at NHTSA's test facility, some of which are small
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act;
however, the agency does not believe that this rulemaking will result
in a significant economic impact on these entities. Under the final
rule, the fees paid for use of the government facility will be
essentially equivalent to those paid to a commercial testing facility--
the market rate. The agency believes that small governmental
jurisdictions will be only minimally affected by this rulemaking since
they are generally not large scale purchasers of vehicles tires.
Furthermore, even in the case of substantial purchases, as noted above,
costs passed on to consumers are expected to be minimal since testing
fees will likely be distributed across a manufacturer's sales volume.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the final rule does not have federalism implications because the rule
does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's final rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in two ways. \4\ This final rule amends 49 CFR Part 575 and is
not a safety standard. This rulemaking only updates the fees currently
charged for use of the traction skid pads at NHTSA's San Angelo Test
Facility and does not require anyone to use the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ With respect to the safety standards, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive
provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under
this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied preemption: State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed
by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with
the base year of 2005). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross
domestic product price deflator for 2009 results in $135 million
(109.770/81.536 = 1.35).
    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $135 million
annually, and will not result in an expenditure of that magnitude by
private entities. Because this final rule will not require expenditures
exceeding $135 million annually, this action is not subject to the
requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This rule will not have any requirements that are
considered to be information collection requirements as defined by the
OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. Accordingly, the PRA is not applicable to this
action.

H. Regulation 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 that appears in the heading on the first page of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your suggestions.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions
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 organization, 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.dot.gov/privacy.html.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

    Consumer protection, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 575 is amended as
follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30123,
30166, and 30168, Pub. L. 104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L. 109-59,
119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Revise Appendix D to Sec.  575.104 to read as follows:

Sec.  575.104  Uniform tire quality grading standards.

Appendix D--User Fees

    1. Use of Government Traction Skid Pads: A fee of $125 will be
assessed for each hour, or fraction thereof, that the traction skid
pads at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, Texas are used. This
fee is based upon the market price of the use of the traction skid
pads.
    2. Fee payments shall be by check, draft, money order, or
Electronic Funds Transfer System made payable to the Treasurer of
the United States.
    3. The fee set forth in this Appendix continues in effect until
adjusted by the Administrator of NHTSA. The Administrator reviews
the fee set forth in this Appendix and, if appropriate, adjusts it
by rule at least every 2 years.

    Issued on: January 25, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-2141 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P