[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44363-44369]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

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

Schedule of Fees

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2015 and until
further notice relating to the registration of importers and the
importation of motor vehicles not certified as conforming to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These fees are needed
to maintain the registered importer (RI) program.

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

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>). You
may call Docket Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may visit the Docket in
person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    NHTSA published a document on June 24, 1996 (61 FR 32411) fully
discussing the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees
authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988,
Public Law 100-562, since recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30141-47. The reader
is referred to that document for background information relating to
this rulemaking action. Certain fees were initially established to
become effective January 31, 1990, and have been periodically adjusted
since then.
    We are required to review and make appropriate adjustments at least
every two years in the fees established for the administration of the
RI program. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in any fiscal
year (FY) are to be established before the beginning of such year.
Ibid. We are proposing fees that would become effective on October 1,
2014, the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2015. The statute authorizes
fees to cover the costs of the importer registration program, to cover
the cost of making import eligibility decisions, and to cover the cost
of processing the bonds furnished to the Department of Homeland
Security (Customs). We last amended the fee schedule in 2012. See final
rule published on August 22, 2012 at 77 FR 50637. Those fees apply to
Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.
    Proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks
for which the fees are assessed. The fees proposed in this document
reflect the one percent increase in General Schedule salary rates that
were effective January 1, 2014 and the slight increases in indirect
costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs since the fees were
last adjusted.

Requirements of the Fee Regulation

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

    Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must
pay the annual fees established ``to pay for the costs of carrying out
the registration program for importers. . . .'' This fee is payable
both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its
registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also
file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its
registration application (or in later submissions amending that
information) remains correct. 49 CFR 592.5(f).
    To comply with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing
fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be
sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration
program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The
initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee
attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications.
We have tentatively determined that this fee should be increased from
$330 to $333 for new applications. We also have tentatively determined
that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be increased
from $201 to $215. The proposed adjustments reflect our time
expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements
with accompanying documentation, and the small increases in indirect
costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs in the two years since
the fees were last adjusted, the increase in direct costs relating to
the one percent raise in salaries of employees on the General Schedule
that became effective on January 1, 2014, and the increase in
contractor costs to the agency.
    We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the
registration program that arise from the need for us to review a
registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of
information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated
costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of
registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to
those matters in the past two years.
    Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee
attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is
approximately $511 for each RI. When this $511 is added to the $333
representing the registration application component, the cost to an
applicant for RI status comes to $844, which is the fee we propose.
This represents an increase of $39 over the existing fee. When the $511
is added to the $215 representing the annual statement component, the
total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes to $726, which
represents an increase of $50.
    Sec. 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with processing
the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states that these
costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary and
benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform
related functions, and ``a pro rata allocation of the costs
attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word
processor.'' For the purpose of establishing the fees that are
currently in existence, indirect costs are $21.66 per man-hour. We are
proposing to increase this figure by $4.07, to $25.73. This proposed
increase is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs
within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years,
which were higher than the estimates used when the fee schedule was
last amended, and takes into account other projected increases over the
next two fiscal years.

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

    Section 30141(a)(3)(B) also requires registered importers to pay
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the
costs of ``making the decisions under this subchapter.'' This includes
decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its
original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and
whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those
standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S.
certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of
the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other
evidence that NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in
response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the
Administrator's own initiative.
    The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made
in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in
part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the
estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility
decisions in a fiscal year. The agency's direct and indirect costs must
be taken into account in the computation of these costs.
    Since we last amended the fee schedule, the overall number of
vehicle imports by RIs has increased, while the number of petitions has
remained approximately the same. The total number of vehicles that RIs
imported between 2009 and 2013 was 117,512 or approximately 23,502
vehicles each year. Over the same period, the number of vehicles
imported under an import eligibility petition that was submitted by an
RI (as opposed to an import eligibility decision initiated by the
agency) increased to 1,987 or approximately 397 vehicles each year.
Over the past five years, RIs submitted 83 petitions to NHTSA,
averaging 17 per year and the agency has devoted more staff time
reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions since we last
revised the fees.

    Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs
assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the
eligibility decision will increase. We project that for FY 2015 and
2016, the agency's costs for processing these 17 petitions will be
$60,095. The petitioners will pay $5,300 of that amount in the
processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving
the remaining $54,795 to be recovered from the importers of the
approximately 397 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-
based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $54,795 by 397 yields a
pro rata fee of $138 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility
decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore
proposing to increase the pro rata share of petition costs that are to
be assessed against the importer of each vehicle from $101 to $138,
which represents an increase of $37. The same $138 fee would be paid
regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a),
based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified
model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety
features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being
modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
    We are proposing no increase in the current fee of $175 that covers
the initial processing of a ``substantially similar'' petition.
Likewise, we are also proposing to maintain the existing fee of $800 to
cover the initial costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have
no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart. In the event that
a petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an
inspection would remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of
either type of petition.
    The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the
vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an
eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than
vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility
numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is
assessed), we are proposing that the fee remain $125. NHTSA determined
that the costs associated with previous eligibility determinations on
the agency's own initiative would be fully recovered by October 1,
2014. We propose to apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles
covered by determinations made by the agency on its own initiative on
or after October 1, 2014.

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

    Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes ``to pay for the
costs of . . . processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the
Treasury . . .'' upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to
ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a
reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such
time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or
abandoned to the United States.
    The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) exercises the
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out
the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that
Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to
Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5
employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20
minutes.
    When the fee schedule was last amended, we projected no General
Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2013 and 2014. Based
on the increase in hourly costs attributable to the approximately one
percent raises in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that
became effective on January 1, 2014, we are proposing that the
processing fee be increased by $0.25, from $9.09 per bond to $9.34.
This increase reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries have been increased
since we last amended the fee schedule in 2012. The $9.34 proposed fee
would more closely reflect the direct and indirect costs that should be
associated with processing the bonds.
    In lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond, an importer may
offer United States money, United States bonds (except for savings
bonds), United States certificates of indebtedness, Treasury notes, or
Treasury bills (collectively referred to as ``cash deposits'') in an
amount equal to the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 591.10(a). The receipt,
processing, handling, and disbursement of the cash deposits that have
been tendered by RIs cause the agency to consume a considerable amount
of staff time and material resources. NHTSA has concluded that the
expense incurred by the agency to receive, process, handle, and
disburse cash deposits may be treated as part of the bond processing
cost, for which NHTSA is authorized to set a fee under 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(3)(A). We first established a fee of $459 for each vehicle
imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits or
obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance
bond. See the Final Rule published on July 11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890.
    The agency considered its direct and indirect costs in calculating
the fee for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash
deposits submitted by importers and RIs in lieu of sureties on a DOT
conformance bond. We are proposing to increase the fee from $495 to
$499, which represents an increase of $4. The factors that the agency
has taken into account in proposing the fee include time expended by
agency personnel, the slight increase in overhead and contractor costs,
and the increase in projected salary costs based on the General
Schedule increase on January 1, 2014.

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

    Each RI is currently required to pay $12 per vehicle to cover the
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We
estimate that these costs will decrease from $12 to an average of $10
per vehicle. Although our overhead and contractor costs increased and
the salary and benefit costs are slightly greater based on the General
Schedule salary increase, the number of certificates of conformity
submitted for agency review has increased. This has decreased the
agency's cost attributed to the review of each certificate of
conformity. Based on these estimates, we are proposing to decrease the
fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is
made, from $12 to $10, a difference of $2 per vehicle. However, if an
RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI)
system, has an email address to receive communications from NHTSA, and
pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us
to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We propose to apply the fee of
$6 per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry is correct.
    Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also
require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the
erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is
ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that
staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance
telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve

the conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and
supervisory time, as well the telephone charges, to amount to
approximately $59 for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6
fee for the review of conformity packages on automated entries yields a
total of $65, representing a $2 increase in the fee that is currently
charged when there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the
statement of conformity.

Effective Date

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

Rulemaking Analyses

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is
not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has
not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886.
Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant
under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected
vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that if made final, the costs of
the proposed rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of
a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any
substantial public interest or controversy. If made final, the rule
would have no substantial effect upon State and local governments.
There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety
program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the
final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on
September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the
docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the
proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would
primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles
and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that
these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this
action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or be only
modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees now
being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing
industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate
purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances,
sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or
purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the
FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary
to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency
for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making
eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond
processing costs.
    Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they
are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor
vehicles.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Federalism implications.'' Executive Order 13132 defines the term
``policies that have federalism implications'' to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Moreover, NHTSA is required by statute to impose fees for the
administration of the RI program and to review and make necessary
adjustments in those fees at least every two years. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rulemaking action.

D. National Environmental Policy Act
    NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant
effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual
volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would
not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the
rule.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' the
agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any
retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not
have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this
proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does
not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to
seeking judicial review.
F. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign
governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to
address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    In this NPRM, NHTSA is requesting public comment on whether (a)
``regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning the
subject matter of this rulemaking and (b) the above policy statement
has any implications for this rulemaking.
G. Executive Order 13211
    Executive Order 13211 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA. As noted above, this NPRM is not significant under E.O.
12866. NHTSA also believes that this rulemaking, if made final, would
not have any effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year
of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on
this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond
$100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements
of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
I. Plain Language
    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
--Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is
unclear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this document.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Part 594 includes
collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance
No. 2127-0002, a consolidated collection of information for
``Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,'' approved
through April 30, 2017. This proposed rule, if made final, would not
affect the burden hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0002 because
we are proposing only to adjust the fees associated with participating
in the registered importer program. These proposed new fees will not
impose new collection of information requirements or otherwise affect
the scope of the program.
K. Executive Order 13045
    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This
rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an
environmental, health, or safety risk.
L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this proposed rule, we propose to adjust the fees associated
with the registered importer program. We propose no substantive changes
to the program nor do we propose any technical standards. For these
reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not apply.
M. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit to
encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion.
However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document,
under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to
the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit the following to the NHTSA Office of
Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of
the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3)
either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission
containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and
any additional information that you deem important to the Chief
Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for
confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must
accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For
further information, submitters who plan to request confidential
treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49
CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document
submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of part
512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public
docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have
deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket
Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under
ADDRESSES.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at
the beginning of this document under DATES. In accordance with our
policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that
Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in
developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address and times given near the beginning of this document under
ADDRESSES.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the on-
line instructions provided. You may download the comments. The comments
are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that
even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant
information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people
may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically search the Docket for new material.
N. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a
Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after
October 1, 2014, must pay an annual fee of $844, as calculated below,
based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:
* * * * *
    (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
processing of the application for applications filed on and after
October 1, 2014, is $333. The sum of $333, representing this portion,
shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
* * * * *
    (d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
remaining activities of administering the registration program on and
after October 1, 2014, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. *
* *
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $25.73 per man-hour for the period beginning
October 1, 2014.
    (i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f),
(g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee
attributable to administration of the registration program, covering
the period beginning

October 1, 2014, is $511. When added to the costs of registration of
$333, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs per
applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are $844. The annual
renewal registration fee for the period beginning October 1, 2014, is
$726.
0
3. Amend Sec.  594.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) to
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2014, the fee
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentences of paragraphs (b)
and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.8  Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to a determination by
the Administrator.

* * * * *
    (b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the
fee for each vehicle is $138. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2014,
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is
$125. * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after
October 1, 2014, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is
$9.34.
* * * * *
    (e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2014,
for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are
furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $499.
0
6. Amend Sec.  594.10 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)
to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of
conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2014 is $10. * * *

    Issued on: July 22, 2014.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-17852 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P