National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2015 and until further notice relating to the registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI) program.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than September 2, 2014.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
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. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
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://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5291). For legal issues, you may call Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5263). You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket in person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
End Further Info
Start Supplemental Information
Start Printed Page 44364
NHTSA published a document on June 24, 1996 (61 FR 32411) fully discussing the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562, since recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30141-47. The reader is referred to that document for background information relating to this rulemaking action. Certain fees were initially established to become effective January 31, 1990, and have been periodically adjusted since then.
We are required to review and make appropriate adjustments at least every two years in the fees established for the administration of the RI program. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in any fiscal year (FY) are to be established before the beginning of such year. Ibid. We are proposing fees that would become effective on October 1, 2014, the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2015. The statute authorizes fees to cover the costs of the importer registration program, to cover the cost of making import eligibility decisions, and to cover the cost of processing the bonds furnished to the Department of Homeland Security (Customs). We last amended the fee schedule in 2012. See final rule published on August 22, 2012 at 77 FR 50637. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.
Proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed. The fees proposed in this document reflect the one percent increase in General Schedule salary rates that were effective January 1, 2014 and the slight increases in indirect costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs since the fees were last adjusted.
Requirements of the Fee Regulation
Section 594.6—Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer Registration Program
Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must pay the annual fees established “to pay for the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers. . . .” This fee is payable both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its registration application (or in later submissions amending that information) remains correct. 49 CFR 592.5(f).
To comply with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications. We have tentatively determined that this fee should be increased from $330 to $333 for new applications. We also have tentatively determined that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be increased from $201 to $215. The proposed adjustments reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, and the small increases in indirect costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs in the two years since the fees were last adjusted, the increase in direct costs relating to the one percent raise in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2014, and the increase in contractor costs to the agency.
We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the registration program that arise from the need for us to review a registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to those matters in the past two years.
Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is approximately $511 for each RI. When this $511 is added to the $333 representing the registration application component, the cost to an applicant for RI status comes to $844, which is the fee we propose. This represents an increase of $39 over the existing fee. When the $511 is added to the $215 representing the annual statement component, the total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes to $726, which represents an increase of $50.
Sec. 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with processing the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states that these costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary and benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform related functions, and “a pro rata allocation of the costs attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word processor.” For the purpose of establishing the fees that are currently in existence, indirect costs are $21.66 per man-hour. We are proposing to increase this figure by $4.07, to $25.73. This proposed increase is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were higher than the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes into account other projected increases over the next two fiscal years.
Sections 594.7, 594.8—Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation Eligibility Decisions
Section 30141(a)(3)(B) also requires registered importers to pay other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of “making the decisions under this subchapter.” This includes decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S. certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other evidence that NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the Administrator's own initiative.
The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility decisions in a fiscal year. The agency's direct and indirect costs must be taken into account in the computation of these costs.
Since we last amended the fee schedule, the overall number of vehicle imports by RIs has increased, while the number of petitions has remained approximately the same. The total number of vehicles that RIs imported between 2009 and 2013 was 117,512 or approximately 23,502 vehicles each year. Over the same period, the number of vehicles imported under an import eligibility petition that was submitted by an RI (as opposed to an import eligibility decision initiated by the agency) increased to 1,987 or approximately 397 vehicles each year. Over the past five years, RIs submitted 83 petitions to NHTSA, averaging 17 per year and the agency has devoted more staff time reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions since we last revised the fees.Start Printed Page 44365
Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the eligibility decision will increase. We project that for FY 2015 and 2016, the agency's costs for processing these 17 petitions will be $60,095. The petitioners will pay $5,300 of that amount in the processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $54,795 to be recovered from the importers of the approximately 397 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $54,795 by 397 yields a pro rata fee of $138 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore proposing to increase the pro rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed against the importer of each vehicle from $101 to $138, which represents an increase of $37. The same $138 fee would be paid regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a), based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
We are proposing no increase in the current fee of $175 that covers the initial processing of a “substantially similar” petition. Likewise, we are also proposing to maintain the existing fee of $800 to cover the initial costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart. In the event that a petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection would remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of petition.
The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is assessed), we are proposing that the fee remain $125. NHTSA determined that the costs associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2014. We propose to apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2014.
Section 594.9—Fee for Reimbursement of Bond Processing Costs and Costs for Processing Offers of Cash Deposits or Obligations of the United States in Lieu of Sureties on Bonds
Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes “to pay for the costs of . . . processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the Treasury . . .” upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or abandoned to the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) exercises the functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5 employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20 minutes.
When the fee schedule was last amended, we projected no General Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2013 and 2014. Based on the increase in hourly costs attributable to the approximately one percent raises in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2014, we are proposing that the processing fee be increased by $0.25, from $9.09 per bond to $9.34. This increase reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries have been increased since we last amended the fee schedule in 2012. The $9.34 proposed fee would more closely reflect the direct and indirect costs that should be associated with processing the bonds.
In lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond, an importer may offer United States money, United States bonds (except for savings bonds), United States certificates of indebtedness, Treasury notes, or Treasury bills (collectively referred to as “cash deposits”) in an amount equal to the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 591.10(a). The receipt, processing, handling, and disbursement of the cash deposits that have been tendered by RIs cause the agency to consume a considerable amount of staff time and material resources. NHTSA has concluded that the expense incurred by the agency to receive, process, handle, and disburse cash deposits may be treated as part of the bond processing cost, for which NHTSA is authorized to set a fee under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(3)(A). We first established a fee of $459 for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance bond. See the Final Rule published on July 11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890.
The agency considered its direct and indirect costs in calculating the fee for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash deposits submitted by importers and RIs in lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond. We are proposing to increase the fee from $495 to $499, which represents an increase of $4. The factors that the agency has taken into account in proposing the fee include time expended by agency personnel, the slight increase in overhead and contractor costs, and the increase in projected salary costs based on the General Schedule increase on January 1, 2014.
Section 594.10—Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate
Each RI is currently required to pay $12 per vehicle to cover the costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We estimate that these costs will decrease from $12 to an average of $10 per vehicle. Although our overhead and contractor costs increased and the salary and benefit costs are slightly greater based on the General Schedule salary increase, the number of certificates of conformity submitted for agency review has increased. This has decreased the agency's cost attributed to the review of each certificate of conformity. Based on these estimates, we are proposing to decrease the fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is made, from $12 to $10, a difference of $2 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system, has an email address to receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We propose to apply the fee of $6 per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry is correct.
Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve Start Printed Page 44366the conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory time, as well the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $59 for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $65, representing a $2 increase in the fee that is currently charged when there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of conformity.
The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2014.
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that if made final, the costs of the proposed rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. If made final, the rule would have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant economic impact upon 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)). The proposed amendments would primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or be only modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees now being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances, sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond processing costs.
Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles.
Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
The proposed rule would 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132. Moreover, NHTSA is required by statute to impose fees for the administration of the RI program and to review and make necessary adjustments in those fees at least every two years. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.Start Printed Page 44367
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” the agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
F. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
In this NPRM, NHTSA is requesting public comment on whether (a) “regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments” concerning the subject matter of this rulemaking and (b) the above policy statement has any implications for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13211 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by NHTSA. As noted above, this NPRM is not significant under E.O. 12866. NHTSA also believes that this rulemaking, if made final, would not have any effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 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 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require 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 proposed rule clearly stated?
—Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?
—Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of heading, 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 include them in your comments on this document.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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. Part 594 includes collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance No. 2127-0002, a consolidated collection of information for “Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,” approved through April 30, 2017. This proposed rule, if made final, would not affect the burden hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0002 because we are proposing only to adjust the fees associated with participating in the registered importer program. These proposed new fees will not impose new collection of information requirements or otherwise affect the scope of the program.
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk.
L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical Start Printed Page 44368standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
In this proposed rule, we propose to adjust the fees associated with the registered importer program. We propose no substantive changes to the program nor do we propose any technical standards. For these reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not apply.
M. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the following to the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this document under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions provided. You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.
N. 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.
Start List of Subjects
End List of Subjects
- Motor vehicle safety
- Motor vehicles
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 594 as follows:
PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141
Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 594 continues to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
2. Amend § 594.6 by: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
(a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
(b) Revising paragraph (b);End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
(c) Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d);End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
(d) Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h); andEnd Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
(e) Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
Annual fee for administration of the registration program.
(a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after October 1, 2014, must pay an annual fee of $844, as calculated below, based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:
* * * * *
(b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the processing of the application for applications filed on and after October 1, 2014, is $333. The sum of $333, representing this portion, shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
* * * * *
(d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the remaining activities of administering the registration program on and after October 1, 2014, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
(h) * * * This cost is $25.73 per man-hour for the period beginning October 1, 2014.
(i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee attributable to administration of the registration program, covering the period beginning Start Printed Page 44369October 1, 2014, is $511. When added to the costs of registration of $333, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are $844. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning October 1, 2014, is $726.
3. Amend § 594.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
Fee for filing petitions for a determination whether a vehicle is eligible for importation.
* * * * *
(e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2014, the fee payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. * * *
* * * * *
4. Amend § 594.8 by revising the first sentences of paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to a determination by the Administrator.
* * * * *
(b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the fee for each vehicle is $138. * * *
(c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2014, pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is $125. * * *
5. Amend § 594.9 by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs and costs for processing offers of cash deposits or obligations of the United States in lieu of sureties on bonds.
* * * * *
(c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2014, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is $9.34.
* * * * *
(e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2014, for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $499.
6. Amend § 594.10 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (d) to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.
* * * * *
(d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2014 is $10. * * *
End Supplemental Information
Issued on: July 22, 2014.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-17852 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P