
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35338-35343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14366]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA 2012-0080, Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AL09


Schedule of Fees Authorized

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2013 and until 
further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, 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.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than July 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: 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.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    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.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    NHTSA published a notice 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 notice 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, 
2012, the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2013. 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 2010. See final 
rule published on August 11, 2010 at 75 FR 48608. Those fees apply to 
Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012.
    Proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks 
for which the fees are assessed. The fees proposed

[[Page 35339]]

in this notice reflect the freeze in General Schedule salary rates 
since January 2010 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 
$320 to $330 for new applications. We also have tentatively determined 
that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be increased 
from $195 to $201. 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.
    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 $475 for each RI. When this $475 is added to the $330 
representing the registration application component, the cost to an 
applicant for RI status comes to $805, which is the fee we propose. 
This represents an increase of $10 over the existing fee. When the $475 
is added to the $201 representing the annual statement component, the 
total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes to $676, which 
represents an increase of $6.
    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 $20.67 per man-hour. We are 
proposing to increase this figure by $0.99, to $21.66. 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 2011 more than doubled from approximately 
10,000 to 23,000, respectively. 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 from 485 in 2009 to 514 in 2010. 
That number subsequently decreased to 404 in 2011. Because the number 
of petitions has remained level over the past two years--averaging 12 
per year--the agency has devoted approximately the same amount of staff 
time reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions.
    Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs 
assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the 
eligibility decision will decrease. We project that for FY 2013 and 
2014, the agency's costs for processing these 12 petitions will be 
$45,591. The petitioners will pay $4,600 of that amount in the 
processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving 
the remaining $40,991 to be recovered from the importers of the 
approximately 404 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-
based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $40,991 by 404 yields a 
pro rata fee of $101 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility 
decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore 
proposing to decrease the pro rata share of petition costs that are to 
be assessed against the importer of each vehicle from $158 to $101, 
which represents a decrease of $57. The same $101 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.-

[[Page 35340]]

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, 
2012. 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, 2012.

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--(A) 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 General 
Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2011 and 2012. Based 
on our projections over the next two fiscal years, we are proposing 
that the processing fee be decreased by $0.84, from $9.93 per bond to 
$9.09. This decrease reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries have been 
frozen since we last amended the fee schedule in 2010. The $9.09 
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 decrease the fee from $514 to 
$495, which represents a decrease of $19. The factors that the agency 
has taken into account in proposing the fee include time expended by 
agency personnel, the slight increase in overhead costs, and the 
reduction in projected salary costs based on the General Schedule 
salary freeze since January 2010.

Section 594.10--Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate

    Each RI is currently required to pay $17 per vehicle to cover the 
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We 
estimate that these costs will decrease from $17 to an average of $12 
per vehicle. Although our overhead costs increased, the salary and 
benefit costs are less than our previous projections based on the 
General Schedule salary freeze. 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 $17 to $12, a difference of $5 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 the 
conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory 
time, as well the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $57 for 
each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review of 
conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $63, 
representing no 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.

Effective Date

    The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2012.

Rulemaking Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 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.

[[Page 35341]]

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 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 Sec.  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.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    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.

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.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    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. 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-

[[Page 35342]]

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.

G. 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.

H. 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 01/31/2014. 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.

I. Executive Order 13045

    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.

J. 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 
standards (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.

K. 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 notice 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

[[Page 35343]]

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.

L. 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.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 594 as follows:

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

PART 594--SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141

    1. The authority citation for part 594 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Amend Sec.  594.6 by:
    (a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
    (b) Revising paragraph (b);
    (c) Revising in paragraph (d) the first sentence;
    (d) Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h); and
    (e) Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  594.6  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, 2012, must pay an annual fee of $805, 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, 2012, is $330. The sum of $330, 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, 2012, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. * 
* *
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $21.66 per man-hour for the period beginning 
October 1, 2012.
    (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 October 1, 2012, is $475. When added to the costs 
of registration of $330, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, 
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are 
$805. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning 
October 1, 2012, is $676.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  594.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  594.7  Fee for filing petitions for a determination whether a 
vehicle is eligible for importation.

* * * * *
    (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2012, the fee 
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(b) and the first sentence of (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  594.8  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 $101. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2012, 
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is 
$125. * * *
    5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraph (c) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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.

* * * * *
    (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after 
October 1, 2012, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is 
$9.09.
* * * * *
    (e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2012, 
for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are 
furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $495.
    6. Amend Sec.  594.10 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  594.10  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, 2012 is $12. * * *

    Issued on: June 6, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-14366 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


