[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48608-48613]
[DOCID:fr11au10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA 2010-0035; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AK70

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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts fees for Fiscal Year 2011 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
$760 to $795 and the annual fee for renewing an existing registration
from $651 to $670. The fee to reimburse Customs for conformance bond
processing costs will decrease from $10.23 to $9.93 per bond. 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 $198
to $158. For vehicles determined eligible based on their capability of
being modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS, the fee will also
decrease from $198 to $158. The fee for the inspection of a vehicle
will remain $827. The fee for processing a conformity package will
increase to $17 from $14. If the vehicle has been entered
electronically with Customs through the Automated Broker Interface
(ABI) and the RI has an e-mail address, the fee for processing the
conformity package will continue to be $6, provided the fee is paid by
credit card. However, if NHTSA finds that the information in the entry
or the conformity package is incorrect, the processing fee will be $57,
representing a $9 increase in 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, 2010. Petitions for reconsideration must be
received by NHTSA not later than September 27, 2010.

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.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that NHTSA published on May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25169).
    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 last amended the fee schedule in 2008. See final rule published
on September 24, 2008 at 73 FR 54981. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years
2009 and 2010.
    The fees adopted in this final rule are based on time expenditures
and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed.
They reflect the increase in hourly costs in the past two fiscal years
attributable to the approximately 4.78 and 2.42 percent raises
(including the locality adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of
employees on the General Schedule that became effective on January 1,
2009, and on January 1, 2010, respectively.

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 fee the Secretary of Transportation establishes ``* * *
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 will increase this fee from $295 to $320 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 $186 to $195. These fee
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 regulation was last
amended.
    We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the
registration program that arise from the need for us to review a
registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of
information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated
costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of
registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to
those matters in the past two years.
    Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee
attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is
approximately $475 for each RI, an increase of $10. When this $475 is
added to the $320 representing the registration application component,
the cost to an applicant comes to $795, which is the fee we are
adopting. This represents an increase of $35 over the existing fee.
When the $475 is added to the $195 representing the annual statement
component, the total cost to an RI renewing its registration comes to
$670, which represents an increase of $19.
    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.'' The indirect costs that were previously calculated and are
now being applied at $20.31 per man-hour (73 FR 54983, Sep. 24, 2008)
are being increased by $0.36, to $20.67. 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
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 RIs to pay other fees the
Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of ``* * *
(B) making the decisions under this subchapter.'' This includes
decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its
original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and
whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those
standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S.-
certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of
the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other
evidence 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.
    The agency believes that the volume of petition-based imports for
the next two fiscal years should not be projected on the basis of any
single year. The agency estimates the number of vehicles that will be
imported under an import eligibility petition in each year for Fiscal
Years 2011 and 2012 will equal the average number of such imports over
that past five years. Further, the agency estimates the number of
import eligibility petitions that will be filed in each year for Fiscal
Years 2011 and 2012 will equal the average number of petitions filed
each year since 2000. Based on these estimates, we project that 554
vehicles would be imported under petition-based eligibility decisions
and that 25 petition-based import eligibility decisions would be made.
    Based on these estimates, we project that for Fiscal Years 2011 and
2012, the agency's costs for processing these 25 petitions will be
$95,479. The petitioners will pay $8,125 of that amount in the
processing fees that accompanied the filing of their

petitions, leaving the remaining $87,354 to be recovered from the
importers of the 554 vehicles imported under petition-based import
eligibility decisions. Dividing $87,354 by 554 yields a pro rata fee of
$158 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that
resulted 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 by $40, from $198 to $158. The same $158
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. 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 counterparts.
    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 decisions on the agency's own
initiative will be fully recovered by October 1, 2010. 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, 2010.

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 an RI 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 * *
*.'' Under Section 30141(d), the bond is provided at the time a
nonconforming vehicle is imported to ensure that the vehicle will be
brought into compliance within 120 days, as required by 49 CFR
591.8(d)(1), or if the vehicle is not brought into compliance within
such time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or
abandoned to the United States. See Section 30141(d)(1)(B).
    The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) administers the
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. The statute
contemplates that we will make a reasonable determination of the cost
that Customs incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to
Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5
employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20
minutes.
    Based on General Schedule salary and locality raises that were
effective in January 2009 and 2010 and the inclusion of costs for
benefits, we are decreasing the processing fee by $0.30, from $10.23
per bond to $9.93. This decrease reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries
were increased by a smaller amount than we previously projected when we
last amended the fee schedule in 2008. This fee will 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, 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 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 increasing the fee $55, from $459 to $514. The
factors that the agency has taken into account for this fee include
time expended by agency personnel, the increase in General Schedule
salary raises that were effective in January 2009 and 2010, and
increased contractor and overhead costs.

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

    Each RI is currently required to pay $14 per vehicle to cover the
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We
have found that these costs have increased to an average of $17 per
vehicle because of increased contractor and overhead costs. Based on
these costs, we are increasing the fee charged for vehicles for which a
paper entry and fee payment is made, from $14 to $17, a difference of
$3 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the ABI
system, has an e-mail address to receive communications from NHTSA, and
pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us
to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We 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 with 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 $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 a $9 increase in the fee that is currently charged when
there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or omissions 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, 2010, and did not
receive any comments on this issue.

Accordingly, the effective date of this final rule is October 1, 2010.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, Oct. 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. 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 rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the adopted amendments
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 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 adopted in this
rulemaking action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed
or be only modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from
the fees previously 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)

    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 amendments adopted in this final rule will 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 solely concerned with the
adjustment of fees associated with the agency's vehicle importation
program. On account of those fee adjustments, the annual volume of
motor vehicles imported through registered importers is not anticipated
to vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the
rule.

E. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' this
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 final 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. 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 11/30/2010. This final
rule would 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. These proposed new
fees will not impose new collection of information requirements or
otherwise affect the scope of the program.

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 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, 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 final rule, we are adjusting the fees associated with the
registered importer program. We are making no substantive changes to
the program nor do we adopt any technical standards. For these reasons,
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would 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).

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.
    In consideration of the foregoing, Part 594, Schedule of Fees
Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended 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

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, 2010, must pay an annual fee of $795, 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, 2010, is $320. The sum of $320, 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, 2010, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. *
* *
* * * * *

    (h) * * * This cost is $20.67 per man-hour for the period beginning
October 1, 2010.
    (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, 2010, is $475. When added to the costs
of registration of $320, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are
$795. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning
October 1, 2010, is $670.

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, 2010, 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 (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 $158. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2010,
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is
$125. * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraph (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, 2010, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is
$9.93.
* * * * *
    (e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2010,
for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are
furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $514.

0
6. Amend Sec.  594.10 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, 2010 is $17. 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
$57.

Marilena Amoni,
Associate Administrator for The National Center for Statistics and
Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2010-19771 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21750-21751]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-129-000]

Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Kern River Gas Transmission
Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 31, 2014, Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
(Mojave) on the behalf of itself and Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944,
filed in Docket No. CP14-129-000, an application pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations, authorizing its Line No. 1901 Replacement Project in Kern
County, California. Specifically, Mojave will replace approximately
1,825 feet of Line No. 1901 in two segments, all as more fully set
forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Mojave Pipeline Company,
L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, phone: (719)
667-7517, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Mark A. Minich,

Assistant General Counsel, Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box
1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(719) 520-4415.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 24, 2014.

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08669 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14809-14810]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0194]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Biosimilars User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3792

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments concerning Form FDA 3792, entitled
``Biosimilars User Fee Cover Sheet.''

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60 day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy
of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
    The March 23, 2010 Affordable Care Act contains a subtitle called
the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act)
that amends the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and other statutes
to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown
to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference
biological product. Section 351(k) of the PHS Act, added by the BPCI
Act, allows a company to submit an application for licensure of a
biosimilar or interchangeable biological product. The BPCI Act also
amends section 735 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act) to include 351(k) applications in the definition of ``human drug
application'' for the purposes of the prescription drug user fee
provisions. The authority conferred by the FD&C Act's prescription drug
user fee provisions expires in September, 2012. The BPCI Act directs
FDA to develop recommendations for a biosimilar biological product user
fee program for fiscal years 2013 through 2017. FDA's recommendations
for a biosimilar biological product user fee program were submitted to
Congress on January 13, 2012. If enacted into law, FDA's proposed
biosimilar biological product user fee program would require FDA to
assess and collect user fees for certain meetings concerning biosimilar
biological product development (BPD meetings), investigational new drug
applications (INDs) intended to support a biosimilar biological product
application, and biosimilar biological product applications and
supplements. Proposed Form FDA 3792, the Biosimilars User Fee Cover
Sheet, requests the minimum necessary information to determine the
amount of the fee required, and to account for and track user fees. The
form would provide a cross-reference of the fees submitted for a
submission with the actual submission by using a unique number tracking
system. The information collected would be used by FDA's Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research to initiate the administrative screening of biosimilar
biological product INDs, applications, and supplements, and to account
for and track user fees associated with BPD meetings.
    Respondents to this proposed collection of information would be
manufacturers of biosimilar biological product candidates. Based on
FDA's database system, there are an estimated 18 manufacturers that
fall into this category. However, not all manufacturers will have
submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. FDA
estimates nine annual responses that include the following: Six INDs or
BPD meetings, two applications, and one supplement. The estimated hours
per response are based on FDA's past experience with other submissions,
and average 30 minutes.

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
              Form                   Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                    respondents      response        responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA 3792........................               9               1               9             0.5             4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: March 7, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6034 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 47797]
[DOCID:fr18au06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL06-84-000]

Nevada Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Proceeding
and Refund Effective Date

August 1, 2006.
    On July 28, 2006, the Commission issued an order that instituted a
proceeding in Docket No. EL06-84-000, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2005), to provide a forum for
Nevada Power Company to address its assertion that its projected native
load needs justify a restriction on the rollover rights of its
transmission customer, PacifiCorp. Nevada Power Company, 116 FERC ]
61,093 (2006).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL06-84-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13764 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60052-60055]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24459]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2014-0452; FRL-9934-78-Region 7]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to revise delisting levels for the hazardous waste
exclusion granted to John Deere Des Moines Works (John Deere) of Deere
& Company, in Ankeny, Iowa to exclude or ``delist'' up to 600 tons per
calendar year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge. The wastewater
treatment sludge is a filter cake generated by John Deere's Ankeny,
Iowa, facility wastewater treatment system was conditionally excluded
from the list of hazardous wastes on November 25, 2014. This direct
final rule responds to a request submitted by John Deere to increase
certain delisting levels and eliminate certain delisting levels for the
excluded waste. After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the request may be
granted.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on December 4, 2015, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 4,
2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-RCRA-2014-0452. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in by contacting the further information contact
below. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no
cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for
additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Herstowski, Waste Remediation
and Permits Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7631; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. How did EPA act on John Deere's delisting petition?
    C. What are the changes John Deere is requesting?
    D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere's request?
    E. How does this final rule affect states?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no
adverse comment. This action narrowly changes the delisting levels for
the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated at the John Deere
Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa. If the EPA receives adverse
comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.
In that case, we may issue a proposed rule to propose the changes and
would address public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action only applies to the F006/F019 wastewater treatment
sludge generated at the John Deere Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa.

III. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or to an
authorized state to exclude or delist, from the RCRA list of hazardous
wastes, waste the generator believes should not be considered hazardous
under RCRA.

B. How did EPA act on John Deere's delisting petition?

    After evaluating the delisting petition submitted by John Deere,
EPA proposed, on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to exclude the waste
from the lists of hazardous waste under Sec.  261.31. EPA issued a
final rule on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70108) granting John Deere's
delisting petition to have up to 600 tons per year of the F006/F019
wastewater treatment sludge generated

at the John Deere Des Moines, Ankney, Iowa, facility excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, once it is disposed
in a Subtitle D landfill.

C. What are the changes John Deere is requesting?

    John Deere requests removal of Table 1 item 1(C)--the requirement
to conduct analysis of verification samples using EPA SW-846 Method
1313 Extraction at pH 2.88, 7 and 13 and the requirement not to exceed
hexavalent chromium level in the resulting [Method 1313] extracts.
    John Deere requests increases in delisting levels in Table 1 item
1(D) as follows: Cadmium to 25.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),
chromium (total) to 51,000 mg/kg, chromium (hexavalent) to 41 mg/kg,
copper to 2877 mg/kg, nickel to 3030 mg/kg, zinc to 10,170, cyanide
(total) to 9 mg/kg, and oil and grease to 64,500 mg/kg.
    John Deere requests the removal of delisting levels in Table 1 item
1(D) for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cobalt, lead, mercury,
selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, acetone, and methyl ethyl
ketone.
    To support the request, John Deere submitted analytical data from
verification testing events conducted since the exclusion was
finalized. John Deere generated the sampling data under a Sampling Plan
and Quality Assurance Project Plan (June 2012 Revision).

D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere's request?

    EPA evaluated the proposed increases in the delisting levels
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec.  261.11(a)(2)
and (a)(3). EPA evaluated the proposed increases in the delisting
levels with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether
there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors
could cause the wastes to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the
waste is acutely toxic, the concentrations of the constituents in the
waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible
and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the
quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.
    For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of
waste constituents through groundwater, surface water and air. We
evaluated John Deere's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27,
2000), 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008)
to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of John
Deere's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. To
predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes
and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution
attenuation factors derived from EPA's Composite Model for Leachate
Migration and Transformation Products (EPACMTP). From a release to
groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor
of ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater
while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
    From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and
the user's guide to DRAS are included in the docket.
    At a benchmark cancer risk of one in one hundred thousand
(1x10-5) and a benchmark hazard quotient of 1.0, the DRAS
program determined maximum allowable concentrations for each
constituent in both the waste and the leachate at an annual waste
volume of 1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill for 20 years after
which time the landfill is closed. We used the maximum reported total
and TCLP leachate concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent
concentrations in the groundwater, soil, surface water and air.
    The maximum allowable total COC concentrations in the Filter Cake
as determined by the DRAS are as follows: milligrams per kilogram (mg/
kg) Barium--2.85 x 10\7\; Copper--5.34 x 10\6\; Chromium (III)--4.56 x
10\10\; Hexavalent Chromium--1.36 x 10\4\; Cyanide--2.99 x 10\6\;
Lead--1.09 x 10\7\; Mercury--1.86 x 10\1\; Nickel--4.76 x 10\6\;
Vanadium--1.52 x 10\8\; Zinc--1.38 x 10\7\; Acetone--3.63 x 10\8\; and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone--1.45 x 10\9\. The maximum allowable leachate COC
concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by the DRAS are as
follows: Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Copper--1.78 x 10\2\; Hexavalent
Chromium--1.38 x 10\1\; Cyanide--2.27 x 10\1\; Lead--4.18 x 10\0\;
Nickel--9.78 x 10\1\; Vanadium--2.47 x 10\1\; Zinc--1.48 x 10\3\; and
Acetone--3.84 x 10\3\. The maximum allowable leachate COC
concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by TCLP are as follows:
Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Barium--100; Chromium (total)--5; Mercury--
0.2; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone--200.
    The concentrations of all constituents in both the waste and the
leachate are below the allowable concentrations. The requested changes
in delisting levels are below the allowable concentrations. EPA's
decision to grant the requested changes by John Deere is based on the
information submitted in support of this direct final rule, and other
information in the docket.

E. How does this final rule affect states?

    EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting
program. Thus, upon the exclusion being finalized, the wastes covered
will be removed from Subtitle C control under the Federal RCRA program.
This will mean, first, that the wastes will be delisted in any State or
territory where the EPA is directly administering the RCRA program
(e.g., Iowa, Indian Country). However, whether the wastes will be
delisted in states which have been authorized to administer the RCRA
program will vary depending upon the authorization status of the States
and the particular requirements regarding delisted wastes in the
various states.
    Some other generally authorized states have not received
authorization for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes delisting
determinations for such states. However, RCRA allows states to impose
their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's,
under Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from
taking effect in the state, or that requires a state concurrence before
the Federal exclusion takes effect, or that allows the state to add
conditions to any Federal exclusion. We urge the petitioner to contact
the state regulatory authority in each state to or through which it may
wish to ship its wastes to establish the status of its wastes under the
state's laws.
    EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. In such states, the state delisting requirements

operate in lieu of the Federal delisting requirements. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless the state
makes the rule part of its authorized program. If John Deere transports
the federally excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, John Deere must obtain a delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-
hazardous in that state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011),
this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a
regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in Section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have
Federalism implications. It will 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,
``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will
affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for
this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers
health and safety risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable
concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from Section 801 the following types of
rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under Section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order
(EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from
management of this material in a Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA
believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by
this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste
management practices for this delisted waste.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: September 14, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 261
as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.

0
2. In the second Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261, ``Wastes Excluded
From Non-Specific Sources'', in the entry for ``John Deere Des Moines
Works of Deere & Company, Ankeny, IA'', revise entry ``1. Delisting
Levels'' to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

* * * * *

                               Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                             Address                         Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
John Deere Des Moines Works of Deere    Ankeny, IA....................
 Company.

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                                        1. Delisting Levels: (A) The WWTS Filter
                                                                         Cake shall not exhibit any of the
                                                                         ``Characteristics of Hazardous Waste''
                                                                         in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. (B) All
                                                                         TCLP leachable concentrations (40 CFR
                                                                         261.24(a)) for the following
                                                                         constituents must not exceed the
                                                                         following levels (mg/L for TCLP):
                                                                         Nickel--32.4. (C) Reserved. (D) All
                                                                         total concentrations for the following
                                                                         constituents must not exceed the
                                                                         following levels (mg/kg): Cadmium--
                                                                         25.5; Chromium (total)--51,000;
                                                                         Chromium (hexavalent)--41; Copper--
                                                                         2877; Nickel--3030; Zinc--10,170;
                                                                         Cyanide--9, Oil and Grease--64,500.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-24459 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P