Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, 20061-20066 [E6-5740]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20061-20066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-2412; Notice 1]
RIN [2127-AJ87]


Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2007 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 June 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at https://
dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to view instructions for filing your 
comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, 
you should mention the docket and notice number of this document. You 
can find the number at the beginning of this document.
    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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5291). For legal issues, you may call 
Michael Goode, 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

    On June 24, 1996, at 61 FR 32411, we published a notice that 
discussed in full 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 as 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 in effect and occasionally 
modified since then.
    The fees applicable in any fiscal year are to be established before 
the beginning of such year. We are proposing fees that would become 
effective on October 1, 2006, the beginning of FY 2007. 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 
2004. See final rule published on September 28, 2004 at 69 FR 57869. 
Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006.
    The proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the 
tasks for which the fees are assessed and reflect the slight increase 
in hourly costs in the past two fiscal years attributable to the 
approximately 3.71 and 3.44 percent raises (including the locality 
adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of employees on the General 
Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2005, and on January 1, 
2006, respectively.

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

[[Page 20062]]

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)).
    In compliance 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 decreased from 
$293 to $266 for new applications. We have also tentatively determined 
that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be decreased 
from $208 to $159. The proposed adjustments reflect reduced ``per 
hour'' computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of 
client-server Information Technology (IT) systems based on user-
friendly personal computers (PCs). The proposed adjustments also 
reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new applications and 
annual statements with accompanying documentation, as well as the 
inflation factor attributable to Federal salary increases and locality 
adjustments in the two years since the regulation was last amended.
    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 $411 for each RI, a decrease of $126. When this $411 is 
added to the $266 representing the registration application component, 
the cost to an applicant comes to $677, which is the fee we propose. 
This represents a decrease of $260 over the existing fee. When the $411 
is added to the $159 representing the annual statement component, the 
total cost to the RI comes to $570, which represents a decrease of 
$175.
    Section 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 $20.07 per man-hour. We are 
proposing to decrease this figure by $3.00, to $17.07. This proposed 
decrease is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs 
within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years, 
which were lower than the estimates used when the fee schedule was last 
amended, and takes account of further projected decreases over the next 
two fiscal years.

Sections 594.7, 594.8--Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation 
Eligibility Determinations

    Section 30141(a)(3) also requires registered importers to pay other 
fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of 
``* * * (B) 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 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 
determinations in a fiscal year.
    Inflation and General Schedule raises must also be taken into 
account in the computation of costs. We have reduced costs by issuing a 
single Federal Register notice to announce import eligibility decisions 
made on multiple vehicles and realized reduced ``per hour'' computer 
costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server IT 
systems based on user-friendly PCs. Despite the cost savings that have 
accrued from these developments, RIs have imported fewer vehicles each 
year since we last amended the fee schedule. This has increased the 
pro-rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed against the 
importer of each vehicle covered by the decision to grant import 
eligibility. The agency has also devoted an increasing share of staff 
time in the past two years to the review and processing of import 
eligibility petitions owing to a proportionately greater number of 
comments being submitted in response to these petitions, as well as 
complications that result when the petitioner or one or more commenters 
request confidentiality for information they submit to the agency. 
Additional staff time is also needed to analyze the petitions and any 
comments received owning to new requirements being adopted in the 
FMVSS. Despite these factors, we are proposing no increase in the 
current fee of $175 that covers the initial processing of a 
``substantially similar'' petition. Instead, as discussed below, we are 
proposing to address these additional costs by increasing the pro-rata 
share of petition costs that are assessed against the importer of each 
vehicle covered by the decision to grant import eligibility. 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.
    Importers of vehicles determined to be eligible for importation 
pay, upon the importation of those vehicles, a pro-rata share of the 
total cost for making the eligibility decision. 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 VSA Nos. 80-83, for which no eligibility decision fee is 
assessed), the fee would 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, 2006. We would 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, 2006.
    The agency's costs for making an import eligibility decision 
pursuant to a petition are borne in part by the petitioner and in part 
by the importers

[[Page 20063]]

of vehicles imported under the petition. In 2005, the most recent year 
for which complete data exists, the agency expended $79,626 in making 
import eligibility decisions based on petitions. The petitioners paid 
$8,575 of that amount in the processing fees that accompanied the 
filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $71,051 to be 
recovered from the importers of the 192 vehicles imported that year 
under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $71,051 by 
192 yields a pro-rata fee of $370 for each vehicle imported under an 
eligibility decision that resulted from the granting of a petition.
    However, the agency believes that the volume of petition-based 
imports for the next two fiscal years should not be projected on the 
basis of a single year, particularly one in which the volume of 
petitioned-based imports was atypically low. The agency therefore took 
the average number of petition-based imports over the past 15 years to 
project the number of such vehicles that would be imported in Fiscal 
Years 2007 and 2008. Further, we anticipate that petitions filed during 
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008 would also more closely reflect the average 
number of petitions received each year since 1991, the first year that 
the agency received RI petitions. Based on these estimates, we 
anticipate that nearly 600 vehicles would be imported under petition-
based eligibility decisions and that 42 petition-based import 
eligibility decisions would be made.
    Based on these estimates, the agency's costs for processing these 
petitions would increase to no more than $140,000. Petitioners would 
pay slightly more than $15,000 of that amount in the processing fees 
that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining 
$125,000 to be recovered from the importers of the nearly 600 vehicles 
to be imported each year under petition-based import eligibility 
decisions. Dividing $125,000 by 600 yields a pro-rata fee of $208 for 
each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that results from 
the granting of a petition.
    Based on our estimates for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, the pro rata 
fee to be paid by the importer of each such vehicle would increase from 
$150 to $208, representing an increase of $58 from the existing fee for 
each vehicle imported. The same $208 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.

Section 594.9--Fee To Recover the Costs of Processing the Bond

    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) now exercises the 
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. The statute 
contemplates that we would 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.
    Based on General Schedule salary and locality raises that were 
effective in January 2005 and 2006 and the inclusion of costs for 
benefits, we are proposing that the processing fee be increased by 
$0.47, from $9.30 per bond to $9.77. This fee would reflect the direct 
and indirect costs that are actually associated with processing the 
bonds.

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

    Each RI is currently required to pay $18 per vehicle to cover the 
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We 
estimate that these costs would decrease to an average of $13 per 
vehicle because of lower contractor costs and reduced ``per hour'' 
computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-
server IT systems based on user-friendly PCs. Based on these estimates, 
we are proposing to reduce the fee charged for vehicles for which a 
paper entry and fee payment is made, from $18 to $13, a difference of 
$5 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the 
Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system, has an e-mail 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 maintain 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 as the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $42 
for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review 
of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $48, 
representing no change 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, 2006.

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.
    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

[[Page 20064]]

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 the 
costs of the final 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. There would be 
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 
(SBFEFA) 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 which 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 some instances, these fees would be only modestly increased 
(and in most 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 implication, 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. 
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,'' this 
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-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.

[[Page 20065]]

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. This proposal would 
require no information collections.

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.

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.
    After conducting a search of available sources, we have concluded 
that there are no voluntary consensus standards applicable to this 
proposed rule.

K. Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written 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.
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 three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
at the beginning of this document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. 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. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be 
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter 
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation, 49 CFR, part 512.
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. To the extent possible, we 
will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that 
date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to 
consider in developing a final 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, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (https://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (https://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. 
Example: if the docket number were ``NHTSA-2000-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.''
    (4) After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the 
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of the word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable. 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

[[Page 20066]]

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 would continue to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 594.6 would be amended by;
    (a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
    (b) Revising paragraph (b);
    (c) Revising paragraph (d);
    (d) Revising the final 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, 2006, must pay an annual fee of $677, 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, 2006, is $266. The sum of $266, 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, 2006, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. 
This portion shall be refundable if the application is denied, or 
withdrawn before final action upon it.
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $17.07 per man-hour for the period beginning 
October 1, 2006.
    (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, 2006, is $411. When added to the costs 
of registration of $266, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, 
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are 
$677. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning 
October 1, 2006, is $570.
    3. Section 594.7 would be amended by revising 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, 2006, the fee 
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section is $175. The fee payable for a petition seeking a determination 
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is $800. If the petitioner 
requests an inspection of a vehicle, the sum of $827 shall be added to 
such fee. No portion of this fee is refundable if the petition is 
withdrawn or denied.
* * * * *
    4. Section 594.8 would be amended by revising paragraph (b) and the 
first sentence of paragraph (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 $208. The direct and indirect costs that 
determine the fee are those set forth in Sec. Sec.  594.7(b), (c), and 
(d).
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2006, 
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is 
$125. * * *
    5. Section 594.9 would be amended by revising paragraph (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  594.9  Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs.

* * * * *
    (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after 
October 1, 2006, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is 
$9.77.
    5. Section 594.10 would be amended by revising 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, 2006 is $13. However, if 
the vehicle covered by the certificate has been entered electronically 
with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Automated 
Broker Interface and the registered importer submitting the certificate 
has an e-mail address, the fee for the certificate is $6, provided that 
the fee is paid by a credit card issued to the registered importer. If 
NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the certificate is 
incorrect, requiring further processing, the processing fee shall be 
$48.

Ronald Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
 [FR Doc. E6-5740 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P