Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, 45195-45201 [E8-17516]
Download as PDF
45195
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Contracts, to revise 503.702 to delete the
definition for ‘‘Notice’’ and ‘‘Voiding
and rescinding official’’ as the terms do
not require definition; to add a new
section 503.703, Authority, to identify
the Senior Procurement Executive as
having the authority to void and rescind
contracts pursuant to FAR 3.703 and
3.705(b); to relocate 503.705 from the
GSAR to the manual part of the GSAM
because it relates to internal
administrative procedures; to add a new
Subpart 503.10, Contractor Code of
Business Ethics and Conduct, to
establish a lower threshold for the
inclusion of FAR 52.203–14, Display of
Hotline Poster(s), at 503.1004(a) and
include the name of the poster and
where the poster may be obtained at
503.1004(b)(i) and (ii) pursuant to FAR
52.203.14(b)(3); to delete GSAR
552.203–5, Covenant Against
Contingent Fees, to ensure consistency
with the GSAM that provides that the
acquisition of leasehold interests in real
property is established by GSAM Part
570; and to delete GSAR 552.203, Price
Adjustment for Illegal or Improper
Activity, to ensure consistency with the
GSAM requirements that leasehold
interests in real property is established
by GSAM Part 570.
This is not a significant regulatory
action and, therefore, was not subject to
review under Section 6(b) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The General Services Administration
does not expect this proposed rule to
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because the revisions are not considered
substantive. The revisions only update
the GSAR and reorganize existing
coverage. An Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not
been performed. We invite comments
from small businesses and other
interested parties. GSA will consider
comments from small entities
concerning the affected GSAR Parts 503
and 552 in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
610. Interested parties must submit such
comments separately and should cite 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR case 2008–
G502), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the proposed changes
to the GSAM do not impose information
collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.
Subpart 503.10—Contractor Code of
Business Ethics and Conduct
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 503 and
552
Government procurement.
503.1004
Dated: July 28, 2008
Al Matera,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48
CFR parts 503 and 552 as set forth
below:
PART 503—IMPROPER BUSINESS
PRACTICES AND PERSONAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 503 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c).
503.104–3 and 503–104–9
[Removed]
2. Remove sections 503.104–3 and
503.104–9.
3. Amend section 503.204 by—
a. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) ‘‘or
joint venture’’;
b. Removing from paragraph (c)
‘‘designated by the Chairman of the GSA
Board of Contract Appeals.’’ and adding
a period, in its place; and
c. Revising paragraph (f).
The revised text reads as follows:
503.204
*
*
*
*
(f) If the Gratuities clause was
violated, the contractor may present
evidence of mitigating factors to the
Senior Procurement Executive, or
designee, in accordance with FAR
3.204(b), either orally or in writing,
consistent with a schedule the Senior
Procurement Executive, or designee,
establishes. The Senior Procurement
Executive, or designee, exercises the
Government’s rights under FAR 3.204(c)
only after considering mitigating factors.
[Removed]
4. Remove section 503.404.
503.570–1
[Amended]
5. Amend section 503.570–1 by
removing ‘‘referring’’ and adding
‘‘making references’’ in its place.
503.702
[Removed]
6. Remove section 503.702.
503.703
[Added]
7. Add section 503.703 to read as
follows:
503.703
Authority.
Pursuant to FAR 3.703 and 3.705(b),
the authority to void or rescind
contracts resides with the Senior
Procurement Executive.
8. Add Subpart 503.10 to read as
follows:
PO 00000
PART 552—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
9. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 552 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c).
552.203–5 and 552.203–70
[Removed]
10. Remove sections 552.203–5 and
552.203–70.
[FR Doc. E8–17790 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–61–S
Treatment of violations.
*
503.404
Contract clauses.
(a) The FAR threshold for the clause
at 52.203–14, Display of Hotline
Poster(s), is $5,000,000. However, GSA
has exercised the authority provided at
FAR 3.1004(b)(1)(i) to establish a lower
threshold, $1,000,000, for inclusion of
the clause when the contract or order is
funded with disaster assistance funds.
(b) The information required to be
inserted in the clause at FAR 52.203–14,
Display of Hotline Poster(s), is as
follows:
(i) Poster: GSA OIG ‘‘FRAUDNET
HOTLINE’’; and
(ii) Obtain from: Contracting Officer.
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 594
[Docket No. NHTSA 2008–0114; Notice 1]
RIN 2127–AK33
Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49
U.S.C. 30141
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes fees
for Fiscal Year 2009 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 September 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the
following methods:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
45196
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://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 https://
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 https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
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 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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
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, 2008, the
beginning of FY 2009. 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 2006. See final rule
published on August 3, 2006 at 71 FR
43985. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years
2007 and 2008.
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 2.64 and 4.49 percent
raises (including the locality adjustment
for Washington, DC) in salaries of
employees on the General Schedule that
became effective on January 1, 2007,
and on January 1, 2008, 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
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
increased from $266 to $295 for new
applications. We have also tentatively
determined that the fee for the review of
the annual statement should be
increased from $159 to $186. The
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed adjustments 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
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 $465 for each RI, an
increase of $54. When this $465 is
added to the $295 representing the
registration application component, the
cost to an applicant for RI status comes
to $760, which is the fee we propose.
This represents an increase of $83 over
the existing fee. When the $465 is added
to the $186 representing the annual
statement component, the total cost to
an RI for renewing its registration comes
to $651, which represents an increase of
$81.
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 prorata 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
$17.07 per man-hour. We are proposing
to increase this figure by $3.24, to
$20.31. 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 account of
further 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) also requires
registered importers to pay other fees
the Secretary of Transportation
establishes to cover the costs of ‘‘* * *
(B) making the decisions under this
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
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. Despite the cost savings that
have accrued from this effort, 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. Although the number of
petitions submitted in the past two
years has decreased, the agency has
devoted an increasing share of staff time
to the review and processing of import
eligibility petitions owing to
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
owing to new requirements being
adopted in the FMVSS, such as the
advanced air bag rule that became
effective September 1, 2006. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 import
eligibility numbers VSA–80 through 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, 2008. We 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, 2008.
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
of vehicles imported under the petition.
In 2007, the most recent year for which
complete data exists, the agency
expended $76,031 in making import
eligibility decisions based on petitions.
The petitioners paid $6,975 of that
amount in the processing fees that
accompanied the filing of their
petitions, leaving the remaining $69,056
to be recovered from the importers of
the 236 vehicles imported that year
under petition-based import eligibility
decisions. Dividing $69,056 by 236
yields a pro-rata fee of $293 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
petition-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 2009 and
2010. Further, we assume that petitions
filed during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45197
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 project that 621
vehicles would be imported under
petition-based eligibility decisions and
that 39 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
$136,000. Petitioners would pay slightly
more than $13,000 of that amount in the
processing fees that accompany the
filing of their petitions, leaving the
remaining $123,000 to be recovered
from the importers of the 621 vehicles
to be imported each year under petitionbased import eligibility decisions.
Dividing $123,000 by 621 yields a prorata fee of $198 for each vehicle
imported under an eligibility decision
that results from the granting of a
petition.
Based on our estimates for Fiscal
Years 2009 and 2010, the pro-rata fee to
be paid by the importer of each such
vehicle would decrease from $208 to
$198, representing a decrease of $10
from the existing fee for each vehicle
imported. The same $198 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. 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,
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
45198
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
which Customs has judged to be 20
minutes.
Based on General Schedule salary and
locality raises that were effective in
January 2007 and 2008 and the
inclusion of costs for benefits, we are
proposing that the processing fee be
increased by $.46, from $9.77 per bond
to $10.23. 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
$13 per vehicle to cover the costs the
agency incurs in reviewing a certificate
of conformity. We estimate that these
costs would increase to an average of
$14.00 per vehicle because of increased
contractor and overhead costs. Based on
these estimates, we are proposing to
increase the fee charged for vehicles for
which a paper entry and fee payment is
made, from $13 to $14, a difference of
$1 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 $6.00.
We propose to maintain the fee of $6.00
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 $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.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Effective Date
The proposed effective date of the
final rule is October 1, 2008.
Rulemaking Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 costeffective 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45199
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 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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
45200
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
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 Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web page
https://www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search for
dockets.’’
(3) On the next page (https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main), select NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION from the dropdown menu in the Agency field, enter
the Docket ID number and title shown
at the heading of this document, and
select ‘‘RULEMAKING’’ from the dropdown menu in the Type field.
(4) After entering that information,
click on ‘‘submit.’’
(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
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
§ 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, 2008,
must pay an annual fee of $760, 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, 2008, is $295. The sum
of $295, 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, 2008, 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 $23.31 per manhour for the period beginning October 1,
2008.
(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, 2008, is $465. When added
to the costs of registration of $295, as set
forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the
costs per applicant to be recovered
through the annual fee are $760. The
annual renewal registration fee for the
period beginning October 1, 2008, is
$651.
3. Section 594.7 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles.
§ 594.7 Fee for filing petitions for a
determination whether a vehicle is eligible
for importation.
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. Section 594.6 is 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
(e) For petitions filed on and after
October 1, 2008, 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 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and the first
sentence of paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
§ 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 $198. The direct and indirect
costs that determine the fee are those set
forth in §§ 594.7(b), (c), and (d).
(c) If a determination has been made
on or after October 1, 2008, pursuant to
the Administrator’s initiative, the fee for
each vehicle is $125. * * *
5. Section 594.9 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond
processing costs.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The bond processing fee for each
vehicle imported on and after October 1,
2008, for which a certificate of
conformity is furnished, is $10.23.
5. Section 594.10 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 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, 2008 is $14.
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.
Issued on: July 25, 2008.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. E8–17516 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
[Docket No. 071203794–8828–01]
RIN 0648–AW36
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence
Fishing
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations
that amend the subsistence fishery rules
for members of an Alaska Native tribe
eligible to harvest Pacific halibut in
waters in and off Alaska for customary
and traditional use. The proposed
change would correct the location listed
in the regulations for the Village of
Kanatak tribe and the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)
halibut regulatory area (Area) in which
members may subsistence fish. These
regulations correctly define the
headquarters and Area for the Village of
Kanatak tribe. The action would change
the tribe’s headquarters from Egegik to
Wasilla and the corresponding Area
from 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the
correction is to remove restrictions on
participation of tribal members in
traditional subsistence fisheries for
Pacific halibut by aligning the tribe’s
headquarters with its actual location in
Wasilla.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than September 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit
comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 0648–
AW36’’ by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
• Fax: (907) 586–7557.
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK.
All comments received are a part of
the public record and will be posted to
https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All Personal Identifying
Information (e.g., name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required
fields, if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments must be in Microsoft Word,
Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable
document file (pdf) formats to be
accepted.
Copies of the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) and Regulatory Impact Review
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45201
(RIR) prepared for this action may be
obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region,
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer;
in person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709
West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau,
Alaska; and via the Internet at the
NMFS Alaska Region website at https://
www.noaa.fakr.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy Murphy, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Need for Action
The United States and Canada
participate in the International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC) and
promulgate regulations governing the
Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
stenolepis) fishery under the authority
of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of
1982 (Halibut Act). Regulations
governing the allocation and catch of
halibut in U.S. convention waters that
are in agreement with the Halibut Act
may be developed by the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council).
Regulations recommended by the
Council must be approved by the
Secretary of Commerce before being
implemented through the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The
Council prepared an environmental
assessment/regulatory impact review
(EA/RIR) for subsistence halibut
fisheries, in January 2003, and NMFS
published the final rule to implement
subsistence halibut regulations in April
2003 (68 FR 18145). The Alaska Native
tribe, Village of Kanatak is recognized in
the regulations as an organized tribal
entity with its tribal headquarters
located in Egegik, Alaska within halibut
regulatory area 3A. However, the tribe’s
headquarters are actually located in
Wasilla, Alaska in halibut regulatory
area 4E. The initial assignment of the
tribal headquarters location to Egegik
was incorrect.
The lists of rural communities and
native tribes recommended by the
Council and approved by the Secretary
for subsistence fishing eligibility were
derived from positive customary and
traditional findings for halibut and
bottomfish made by the Alaska State
Board of Fisheries (BOF) prior to the
Alaska Supreme Court decision,
McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska
1989). The Council retains exclusive
authority to recommend changes to the
list of communities § 300.65(g)(1) and
Alaska Native tribes § 300.65(g)(2) with
customary and traditional uses of
Pacific halibut. Residents and tribal
members who believe that their rural or
tribal place was incorrectly left out of
the subsistence eligibility listing for
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45195-45201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17516]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 594
[Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0114; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AK33
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 2009 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 September 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
[[Page 45196]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
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 https://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 https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://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
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 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,
2008, the beginning of FY 2009. 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 2006. See final rule
published on August 3, 2006 at 71 FR 43985. Those fees apply to Fiscal
Years 2007 and 2008.
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 2.64 and 4.49 percent raises (including the locality
adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of employees on the General
Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2007, and on January 1,
2008, 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
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 increased from
$266 to $295 for new applications. We have also tentatively determined
that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be increased
from $159 to $186. The proposed adjustments 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 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 $465 for each RI, an increase of $54. When this $465 is
added to the $295 representing the registration application component,
the cost to an applicant for RI status comes to $760, which is the fee
we propose. This represents an increase of $83 over the existing fee.
When the $465 is added to the $186 representing the annual statement
component, the total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes
to $651, which represents an increase of $81.
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 $17.07 per man-hour. We are
proposing to increase this figure by $3.24, to $20.31. 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 account of further 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) also requires registered importers to pay other
fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of
``* * * (B) making the decisions under this
[[Page 45197]]
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.
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. Despite the cost savings that have accrued
from this effort, 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. Although
the number of petitions submitted in the past two years has decreased,
the agency has devoted an increasing share of staff time to the review
and processing of import eligibility petitions owing to 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 owing to new requirements being adopted in the FMVSS, such as
the advanced air bag rule that became effective September 1, 2006.
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 import eligibility numbers VSA-80 through 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, 2008. We 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, 2008.
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 of vehicles imported under the petition. In 2007, the
most recent year for which complete data exists, the agency expended
$76,031 in making import eligibility decisions based on petitions. The
petitioners paid $6,975 of that amount in the processing fees that
accompanied the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining
$69,056 to be recovered from the importers of the 236 vehicles imported
that year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing
$69,056 by 236 yields a pro-rata fee of $293 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
petition-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 2009 and 2010. Further, we assume that petitions filed during
Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 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 project
that 621 vehicles would be imported under petition-based eligibility
decisions and that 39 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 $136,000. Petitioners would
pay slightly more than $13,000 of that amount in the processing fees
that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining
$123,000 to be recovered from the importers of the 621 vehicles to be
imported each year under petition-based import eligibility decisions.
Dividing $123,000 by 621 yields a pro-rata fee of $198 for each vehicle
imported under an eligibility decision that results from the granting
of a petition.
Based on our estimates for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, the pro-rata
fee to be paid by the importer of each such vehicle would decrease from
$208 to $198, representing a decrease of $10 from the existing fee for
each vehicle imported. The same $198 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. 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,
[[Page 45198]]
which Customs has judged to be 20 minutes.
Based on General Schedule salary and locality raises that were
effective in January 2007 and 2008 and the inclusion of costs for
benefits, we are proposing that the processing fee be increased by
$.46, from $9.77 per bond to $10.23. 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 $13 per vehicle to cover the
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We
estimate that these costs would increase to an average of $14.00 per
vehicle because of increased contractor and overhead costs. Based on
these estimates, we are proposing to increase the fee charged for
vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is made, from $13 to
$14, a difference of $1 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 $6.00. We propose to maintain the fee of $6.00 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 $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, 2008.
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 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 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
[[Page 45199]]
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,'' 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.
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 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.
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.
[[Page 45200]]
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 Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) On that page, click on ``search for dockets.''
(3) On the next page (https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main), select NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number
and title shown at the heading of this document, and select
``RULEMAKING'' from the drop-down menu in the Type field.
(4) After entering that information, click on ``submit.''
(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 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. Section 594.6 is 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, 2008, must pay an annual fee of $760, 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, 2008, is $295. The sum of $295, 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, 2008, 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 $23.31 per man-hour for the period beginning
October 1, 2008.
(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, 2008, is $465. When added to the costs
of registration of $295, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are
$760. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning
October 1, 2008, is $651.
3. Section 594.7 is 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, 2008, 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 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and the first
sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
[[Page 45201]]
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 $198. 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, 2008,
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is
$125. * * *
5. Section 594.9 is 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, 2008, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is
$10.23.
5. Section 594.10 is 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, 2008 is $14. 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.
Issued on: July 25, 2008.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-17516 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P