
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44363-44369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0052; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AL09


Schedule of Fees

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: 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.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than September 2, 2014.

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: 

[[Page 44364]]

Introduction

    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.

[[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

[[Page 44366]]

the 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.

Effective Date

    The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2014.

Rulemaking Analyses

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.
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.

[[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.
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. 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.
G. Executive Order 13211
    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.
K. 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.
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

[[Page 44368]]

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.
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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, 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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  594.6 by:
0
(a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
0
(b) Revising paragraph (b);
0
(c) Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d);
0
(d) Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h); and
0
(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, 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

[[Page 44369]]

October 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.
0
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, 2014, the fee 
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentences of paragraphs (b) 
and (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 $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. * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraphs (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, 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.
0
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, 2014 is $10. * * *

    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


