Schedule of Fees Authorized, 50637-50642 [2012-20622]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50637-50642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20622]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0080; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AL09


Schedule of Fees Authorized

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts fees for Fiscal Year 2013 and until 
further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the 
registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not 
certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
(FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI) 
program.
    We are increasing the fees for the registration of a new RI from 
$795 to $805 and the annual fee for renewing an existing registration 
from $670 to $676. The fee to reimburse Customs for conformance bond 
processing costs will decrease from $9.93 to $9.09 per bond. The fee 
for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash deposits 
that are submitted in lieu of a conformance bond will decrease from 
$514 to $495. We are decreasing the fees for the importation of a 
vehicle covered by an import eligibility decision made on an individual 
model and model year basis. For vehicles determined eligible based on 
their substantial similarity to a U.S. certified vehicle, the fee will 
decrease from $158 to $101. For vehicles determined eligible based on 
their capability of being modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS, 
the fee will also decrease from $158 to $101. The fee for the 
inspection of a vehicle will remain $827. The fee for processing a 
conformity package will decrease from $17 to $12. If the vehicle has 
been entered electronically with Customs through the Automated Broker 
Interface (ABI) and the RI has an email address, the fee for processing 
the conformity package will continue to be $6, provided the fee is paid 
by credit card. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the 
conformity package is incorrect, the processing fee will remain $57, 
representing the fee that is currently charged when there are one or 
more errors in the ABI entry or omissions in the statement of 
conformity.

DATES: The amendments established by this final rule will become 
effective on October 1, 2012. Petitions for reconsideration must be 
received by NHTSA not later than October 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule should 
refer to the docket and notice numbers identified above and be 
submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the 
petition be submitted. The petition must be received not later than 45 
days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. 
Petitions filed after that time will be considered petitions filed by 
interested persons to initiate rulemaking pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter 
301.

[[Page 50638]]

    The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an 
explanation as to why compliance with the final rule is not 
practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. Unless 
otherwise specified in the final rule, the statement and explanation 
together may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments 
may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit. 
If it is requested that additional facts be considered, the petitioner 
must state the reason why they were not presented to the Administrator 
within the prescribed time. The Administrator does not consider 
repetitious petitions and unless the Administrator otherwise provides, 
the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the final 
rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5291). For legal issues, you may call 
Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction

    This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
that NHTSA published on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35338).
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended by 
the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and recodified at 
49 U.S.C. 30141-30147 (``the Act''), provides for fees to cover the 
costs of the importer registration program, the cost of making import 
eligibility decisions, and the cost of processing the bonds furnished 
to Customs. Certain fees became effective on January 31, 1990, and have 
been in effect, with modifications, since then. On June 24, 1996, we 
published a notice in the Federal Register at 61 FR 32411 that 
discussed the rulemaking history of 49 CFR Part 594 and the fees 
authorized by the Act. The reader is referred to that notice for 
background information relating to this rulemaking action.
    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. Id. 
We last amended the fee schedule in 2010. See final rule published on 
August 11, 2010 at 75 FR 48608. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 2011 
and 2012.
    The fees adopted in this final rule are based on time expenditures 
and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed. 
The fees adopted in this notice reflect the freeze in General Schedule 
salary rates since January 2010 and the slight increases in indirect 
costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs since the fees were 
last adjusted.

Comments

    There were no comments in response to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking.

Requirements of the Fee Regulation

Section 594.6--Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer 
Registration Program

    Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must 
pay the annual fees established ``to pay for the costs of carrying out 
the registration program for importers * * *.'' This fee is payable 
both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its 
registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also 
file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its 
registration application (or in later submissions amending that 
information) remains correct. 49 CFR 592.5(f).
    To comply with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing 
fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be 
sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration 
program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The 
initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee 
attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications. 
We will increase this fee from $320 to $330 for new applications. We 
have also determined that the fee for the review of the annual 
statement submitted by existing RIs who wish to renew their 
registrations will be increased from $195 to $201. These fee 
adjustments reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new 
applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, and 
the small increases in indirect costs attributed to the agency's 
overhead costs in the two years since the fees were last adjusted.
    We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the 
registration program that arise from the need for us to review a 
registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of 
information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated 
costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of 
registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to 
those matters in the past two years.
    Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee 
attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is 
approximately $475 for each RI. When this $475 is added to the $330 
representing the registration application component, the cost to an 
applicant for RI status comes to $805, which is the fee we are 
adopting. This represents an increase of $10 over the existing fee. 
When the $475 is added to the $201 representing the annual statement 
component, the total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes 
to $676, which represents an increase of $6.
    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 $20.67 per man-hour. We are 
increasing this figure by $0.99, to $21.66. This increase is based on 
the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of 
Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were higher than 
the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes 
into account other projected increases over the next two fiscal years.

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

    Section 30141(a)(3)(B) also requires registered importers to pay 
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the 
costs of ``making the decisions under this subchapter.'' This includes 
decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially 
similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for 
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its 
original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and 
whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those 
standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S.-
certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of 
the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply 
with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other 
evidence that NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in 
response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the 
Administrator's own initiative.

[[Page 50639]]

    The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made 
in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in 
part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the 
estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility 
decisions in a fiscal year. The agency's direct and indirect costs must 
be taken into account in the computation of these costs.
    Since we last amended the fee schedule, the overall number of 
vehicle imports by RIs has increased, while the number of petitions has 
remained approximately the same. The total number of vehicles that RIs 
imported each year from 2009 to 2011 more than doubled from 
approximately 10,000 to 23,000, respectively. Over the same period, the 
number of vehicles imported under an import eligibility petition that 
was submitted by an RI (as opposed to an import eligibility decision 
initiated by the agency) increased from 485 in 2009 to 514 in 2010. 
That number subsequently decreased to 404 in 2011. Because the number 
of petitions has remained level over the past two years--averaging 12 
per year--the agency has devoted approximately the same amount of staff 
time reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions.
    Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs 
assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the 
eligibility decision will decrease. We project that for FY 2013 and 
2014, the agency's annual costs for processing these 12 petitions will 
be $45,591. The petitioners will pay $4,600 of that amount in the 
processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving 
the remaining $40,991 to be recovered from the importers of the 
approximately 404 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-
based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $40,991 by 404 yields a 
pro rata fee of $101 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility 
decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore 
decreasing the pro rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed 
against the importer of each vehicle from $158 to $101, which 
represents a decrease of $57. The same $101 fee would be paid 
regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a), 
based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified 
model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety 
features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being 
modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
    We are not increasing the current fee of $175 that covers the 
initial processing of a ``substantially similar'' petition. Likewise, 
we are also maintaining 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 
will remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of 
petition.
    The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the 
vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an 
eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than 
vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility 
numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is 
assessed), the fee remains $125. NHTSA determined that the costs 
associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own 
initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2012. We will apply 
the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations 
made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2012.

Section 594.9--Fee for Reimbursement of Bond Processing Costs and Costs 
for Processing Offers of Cash Deposits or Obligations of the United 
States in Lieu of Sureties on Bonds

    Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any 
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes ``to pay for the 
costs of--(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the 
Treasury * * *'' upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to 
ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a 
reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such 
time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or 
abandoned to the United States.
    The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) exercises the 
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out 
the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that 
Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to 
Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5 
employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20 
minutes.
    When the fee schedule was last amended, we projected General 
Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2011 and 2012. Based 
on our projections over the next two fiscal years, we are decreasing 
the processing fee by $0.84, from $9.93 per bond to $9.09. This 
decrease reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries have been frozen since we 
last amended the fee schedule in 2010. The $9.09 fee will more closely 
reflect the direct and indirect costs that are actually associated with 
processing the bonds.
    In lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond, an importer may 
offer United States money, United States bonds (except for savings 
bonds), United States certificates of indebtedness, Treasury notes, or 
Treasury bills (collectively referred to as ``cash deposits'') in an 
amount equal to the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 591.10(a). The receipt, 
processing, handling, and disbursement of the cash deposits that have 
been tendered by RIs cause the agency to consume a considerable amount 
of staff time and material resources. NHTSA has concluded that the 
expense incurred by the agency to receive, process, handle, and 
disburse cash deposits may be treated as part of the bond processing 
cost, which NHTSA is authorized to set a fee under 49 U.S.C. 
30141(a)(3)(A). We first established a fee of $459 for each vehicle 
imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits or 
obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance 
bond. See the Final Rule published on July 11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890.
    The agency considered its direct and indirect costs in calculating 
the fee for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash 
deposits submitted by importers and RIs in lieu of sureties on a DOT 
conformance bond. We are decreasing the fee from $514 to $495. The 
factors that the agency has taken into account in proposing the fee 
include time expended by agency personnel, the slight increase in 
overhead costs, and the reduction in projected salary costs based on 
the General Schedule salary freeze since January 2010.

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

    Each RI is currently required to pay $17 per vehicle to cover the 
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We 
have found that these costs have decreased from $17 to an average of 
$12 per vehicle. Although our overhead costs increased, the salary and 
benefit costs are less than our previous projections based on the 
General Schedule salary freeze. The number of certificates of 
conformity submitted for agency review has increased. This has 
decreased the agency's cost attributed to the review of each 
certificate of conformity. Based on these costs, we are decreasing the 
fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is 
made, from $17 to $12, a difference

[[Page 50640]]

of $5 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the 
Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system, has an email address to 
receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the 
cost savings that we realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee 
to $6. We are maintaining 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 $57 
for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review 
of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $63, 
representing no increase in the fee that is currently charged when 
there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of 
conformity.

Statutory Basis for the Final Rule and Effective Date

    NHTSA is required under 49 U.S.C. 30141(e) to ``review and make 
appropriate adjustments at least every 2 years in the amounts of the 
fees'' relating to the registration of importers, the processing of 
bonds, and making decisions concerning the importation of nonconforming 
vehicles. The statute further requires the agency to ``establish the 
fees for each fiscal year before the beginning of that year.'' This 
final rule implements the statutory provisions. In the NPRM, we 
proposed to make this rule effective October 1, 2012, and did not 
receive any comments on this issue. Accordingly, the effective date of 
this final rule is October 1, 2012.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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. The rule 
will have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There 
will be no substantial impacts 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.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The agency has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the rules being adopted 
will 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 adopted amendments will 
primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles 
and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that 
these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this 
action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or be only 
modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees now 
being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing 
industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate 
purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances, 
sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or 
purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the 
FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary 
to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency 
for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making 
eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond 
processing costs.
    Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected at all since they 
are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor 
vehicles.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives 
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded 
that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant either consultation with State and local officials or 
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule

[[Page 50641]]

does 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 the responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of 
preemption in connection with today's final rule. The issue of 
preemption can arise in connection with NHTSA rules in two ways.
    First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains 
an express preemption provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative 
law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation is unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied 
preemption: In some instances, State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of some of 
the NHTSA safety standards. When such a conflict is discerned, the 
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements 
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000).
    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure 
of the regulatory text) and purpose of today's final rule and does not 
foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. 
Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of 
state law, including state tort law.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
    NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The action will not have a significant effect 
upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume 
of motor vehicles imported through registered importers will not vary 
significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' the 
agency has considered whether the amendments adopted in this final rule 
will have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that those amendments 
will not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of the rule 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 this final rule will 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. Paperwork Reduction Act
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Part 594 includes 
collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance 
No. 2127-0002, a consolidated collection of information for 
``Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,'' approved 
through January 31, 2014. This final rule will not affect the burden 
hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0002 because we are only 
adjusting the fees associated with participating in the registered 
importer program. The new fees that we are adopting will not impose new 
collection of information requirements or otherwise affect the scope of 
the program.
H. Executive Order 13045
    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the 
agency 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 it decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this final rule, we are adjusting the fees associated with the 
registered importer program. We are making no substantive changes to 
the program nor did we adopt any technical standards. For these 
reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA does not apply.
J. Privacy Act
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition, 
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://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 50642]]

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this 
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 594 is amended as 
follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 594 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  594.6 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising in paragraph (d) the first sentence;
0
d. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  594.6  Annual fee for administration of the registration program.

    (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a 
Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after 
October 1, 2012, must pay an annual fee of $805, as calculated below, 
based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:
* * * * *
    (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the 
processing of the application for applications filed on and after 
October 1, 2012, is $330. The sum of $330, representing this portion, 
shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
* * * * *
    (d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the 
remaining activities of administering the registration program on and 
after October 1, 2012, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. * 
* *
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $21.66 per man-hour for the period beginning 
October 1, 2012.
    (i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f), 
(g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee 
attributable to administration of the registration program, covering 
the period beginning October 1, 2012, is $475. When added to the costs 
of registration of $330, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, 
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are 
$805. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning 
October 1, 2012, is $676.

0
3. Amend Sec.  594.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2012, the fee 
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentence of 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 $101. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2012, 
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is 
$125. * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  594.9  Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs and costs 
for processing offers of cash deposits or obligations of the United 
States in lieu of sureties on bonds.

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


Sec.  594.10  Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.

* * * * *
    (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of 
conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2012 is $12. * * *

    Issued on: August 16, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-20622 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P