Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 57869

which will expire on December 31, 

2005. The clearance number is 2127–

0616. The amendments adopted by this 

document do not change the overall 

paperwork burden. They simply extend 

the dates for reporting certain 

information pursuant to the EWR rule. 

Data Quality Act. Section 515 of the 

FY 2001 Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act (Public 

Law 106–554, § 515, codified at 44 

U.S.C. 3516 historical and statutory 

note), commonly referred to as the Data 

Quality Act, directed OMB to establish 

government-wide standards in the form 

of guidelines designed to maximize the 

‘‘quality,’’ ‘‘objectivity,’’ ‘‘utility,’’ and 

‘‘integrity’’ of information that Federal 

agencies disseminate to the public. As 

noted in the EWR final rule (67 FR 

45822), NHTSA has reviewed its data 

collection, generation, and 

dissemination processes in order to 

ensure that agency information meets 

the standards articulated in the OMB 

and DOT guidelines. The changes 

adopted by today’s final rule simply 

extends the reporting period for 

submission of data pursuant to the EWR 

rule and do not have any effects on the 

quality of the date disseminated by the 

agency. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4) 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 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation with base year of 1995). The 

EWR final rule did not have unfunded 

mandates implications. 67 FR 49263. 

Today’s final rule simply extends the 

reporting period for submission of data 

pursuant to the EWR rule and does not 

create any unfunded mandates within 

the meaning of this Act.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 579 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR chapter V is amended as follows:

PART 579—REPORTING OF 

INFORMATION AND 

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT 

POTENTIAL DEFECTS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 579 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 3, Pub. L. 106–414, 114 

Stat. 1800 (49 U.S.C. 30102–103, 30112, 

30117–121, 30166–167); delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart C—Reporting of Early 

Warning Information

■ 2. In § 579.28, revise paragraphs (b) 

and (n) to read as follows:

§ 579.28 Due date of reports and other 

miscellaneous provisions.

* * * * *

(b) Due date of reports. Except as 

provided in paragraph (n) of this 

section, each manufacturer of motor 

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 

shall submit each report that is required 

by this subpart not later than 60 days 

after the last day of the reporting period.

* * * * *

(n) Submission of copies of field 

reports. Copies of field reports required 

under this subpart shall be submitted 

not later than 15 days after reports are 

due pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 

section.

Issued on: September 22, 2004. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–21737 Filed 9–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 594 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004–17987; Notice 2] 

RIN 2127–AJ34 

Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 

U.S.C. 30141

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document adopts fees for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 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).

DATES: The amendments established by 

this final rule will become effective on 

October 1, 2004, the beginning of FY 

2005. Petitions for reconsideration must 

be received by NHTSA not later than 

November 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket and notice 

numbers above and be submitted to the 

Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590, with a copy to the docket. You 

may provide a copy of your petition by 

any of the following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. Please note, if you are submitting 

petitions electronically as a PDF 

(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents 

submitted be scanned using Optical 

Character Recognition (OCR) process, 

thus allowing the agency to search and 

copy certain portions of your 

submissions. Please also note that 

anyone is able to search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78) or you may visit http://

dms.dot.gov. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues: Coleman Sachs, Office 

of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590 (202–366–5291). For legal 

issues: Michael Goode, Office of Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 

(202–366–5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Introduction 

The amendments we are adopting in 

this rule increase the fees for the 

registration of a new registered importer 

(RI) from $655 to $830 and the annual 

fee for renewing an existing registration 

from $455 to $745. These fees include 

the costs of maintaining the RI program. 

We are also increasing, from $550 to 

$827, the fee for inspecting a vehicle 

that is the subject of an import 

eligibility petition when we are asked to 

conduct such an inspection by the 

petitioner. The fee required to reimburse 

the U.S. Department of Homeland 

57870 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Security (Customs) for conformance 

bond processing costs will increase from 

$6.20 to $9.30 per bond. We are also 

increasing the fees assessed against the 

importer of each vehicle covered by the 

decision to grant import eligibility. For 

vehicles determined eligible based on 

their substantial similarity to a U.S. 

certified vehicle, the fee is increased 

from $105 to $150. For vehicles 

determined eligible based on their 

capability of being modified to comply 

with all applicable FMVSS, the fee is 

increased from $125 to $150. The fee 

that a RI must pay as a processing cost 

for review of each conformity package 

that it submits to NHTSA will remain at 

$18 per certificate. If the vehicle has 

been entered electronically with 

Customs through the Automated Broker 

Interface and the registered importer 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 increase from $18 to 

$48. 

This rule was preceded by a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

NHTSA published in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 2004 (69 FR 32312). 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act, as amended by the Imported 

Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, 

and recodified as 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 determinations, 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 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 

2002. See final rule published on 

September 26, 2002, at 67 FR 60596 

(corrected on October 9, 2002, at 67 FR 

62897). Those fees applied to Fiscal 

Years 2003 and 2004.

The fees adopted by this final rule are 

based on actual time and costs 

associated with the tasks for which the 

fees are assessed and reflect the slight 

increase in hourly costs in the past two 

fiscal years attributable to the 

approximately 4.27 and 4.42 percent 

raises (including the locality adjustment 

for Washington, D.C.) in salaries of 

employees on the General Schedule that 

became effective on January 1, 2003, 

and on January 1, 2004, respectively. 

B. Comments 

Two comments were submitted in 

response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. The first of these was from 

Ms. Barb Sachau. In her comments, Ms. 

Sachau expressed the opinion that the 

proposed fees should cover the entire 

costs of the RI program and that 

taxpayers should not be burdened with 

any share of those costs. Ms. Sachau 

generally recommended that the RI 

program fees be tripled. She also 

specifically proposed an increase in the 

fee for reviewing certificates of 

conformity to a minimum of $200, and 

an increase in the fee for a vehicle 

inspection to $2,127. Ms. Sachau also 

recommended that an importer who 

petitions the agency to determine a 

vehicle eligible for importation should 

pay all costs associated with processing 

the petition, rather than sharing those 

costs with the importers of the vehicle. 

Ms. Sachau’s concern that taxpayers 

should not be burdened with the costs 

of the RI program is consistent with the 

statute on which the program is based 

and the manner in which it is 

conducted by NHTSA. Section 

30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code 

requires registered importers to pay ‘‘for 

the costs of carrying out the registration 

program * * * and any other fees the 

Secretary of Transportation establishes 

to pay for the costs of (A) processing 

bonds * * * and (B) making [import 

eligibility] decisions * * *’’ As 

reflected in the agency’s regulations at 

49 CFR 594.2, the purpose of these fees 

is ‘‘to ensure that NHTSA is reimbursed 

for costs incurred in administering the 

RI program’’ and carrying out associated 

functions. 

Ms. Sachau did not provide the 

calculations that served as the basis for 

her proposal to triple the RI program 

fees, and the specific amounts that she 

recommended for reviewing certificates 

of conformity and performing vehicle 

inspections. In preparing the NPRM, we 

calculated the costs incurred in 

administering the RI program and 

proposed fees that would reimburse the 

Federal government for its actual 

expenses. 

To avoid burdening a single RI with 

all costs associated with making an 

import eligibility decision, NHTSA 

decided in 1990 to allocate those costs, 

on a pro rata basis, among all RIs who 

import the vehicle to which the decision 

relates. In that manner, the agency’s 

costs for making an import eligibility 

decision are borne in part by the 

petitioner and in part by the importers 

of vehicles imported under the petition. 

This approach accomplishes what Ms. 

Sachau desires in that it provides ample 

means for the agency to recover the 

costs incurred for the eligibility 

decisions that it makes.

The second comment was submitted 

by Mr. Jeffrey A. Beyer, Vice President, 

BCB International, Incorporated, a 

Customs Broker in Buffalo, New York. 

Mr. Beyer objected to the proposed fee 

increase for processing a conformity 

package in situations where an error is 

committed in submitting information 

through the Automated Broker Interface 

(ABI). Mr. Beyer stated that when an RI 

is charged increased fees for such an 

error, the RI, in turn, expects to be 

compensated for the extra fee by the 

Customs Broker who made the entry. 

Mr. Beyer expressed the belief that it is 

unfair to increase the fees in this 

circumstance because no mechanism is 

presently available in the Customs ABI 

system to correct or update an entry. 

Mr. Beyer’s concerns relate to his 

business dealings with Customs and the 

ABI system that Customs controls. 

While we are sensitive to Mr. Beyer’s 

professed inability to correct or update 

an entry made into the Customs 

software, once an error is made, NHTSA 

must expend a considerable amount of 

additional effort to correct the entry. 

These efforts result in significantly 

greater costs to the agency. Consistent 

with the statutory requirement for the 

agency to recover the actual costs it 

incurs in administering the RI program, 

it is entirely appropriate for NHTSA to 

increase its fee for processing 

submissions in which errors are made. 

C. 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(e)). 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 57871

initial component of the Registration 

Program Fee is the fee attributable to 

processing and acting upon registration 

applications. We will decrease this fee 

from $395 to $293 for new applications. 

We have also determined that the fee for 

the review of the annual statement will 

be increased from $195 to $208. 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 $537 for each RI, an 

increase of $277. When this $537 is 

added to the $293 representing the 

registration application component, the 

cost to an applicant comes to $830, 

which is the fee we are adopting. This 

represents an increase of $186 over the 

existing fee. When the $537 is added to 

the $208 representing the annual 

statement component, the total cost to 

the RI comes to $745, which represents 

an increase of $290.

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 at $14.85 per man-hour are 

being increased by $5.22, to $20.07. 

Sections 594.7 and 594.8—Fees To 

Cover Agency Costs in Making 

Importation Eligibility Determinations 

Section 30141(a)(3) also requires 

registered importers to pay other fees 

the Secretary of Transportation 

establishes to cover the costs of ‘‘* * * 

(B) making the decisions under this 

subchapter.’’ This includes decisions on 

whether the vehicle sought to be 

imported is substantially similar to a 

motor vehicle that was originally 

manufactured for importation into and 

sale in the United States and certified by 

its original manufacturer as complying 

with all applicable FMVSS, and 

whether the vehicle is capable of being 

readily altered to meet those standards. 

Alternatively, where there is no 

substantially similar U.S. certified 

motor vehicle, the decision is whether 

the safety features of the vehicle comply 

with or are capable of being altered to 

comply with the FMVSS based on 

destructive test information or such 

other evidence NHTSA deems to be 

adequate. These decisions are made in 

response to petitions submitted by RIs 

or manufacturers, or on the 

Administrator’s own initiative. 

The fee for a vehicle imported under 

an eligibility decision made in response 

to a petition is payable in part by the 

petitioner and in part by other 

importers. The fee to be charged for 

each vehicle is the estimated pro rata 

share of the costs in making all the 

eligibility determinations in a fiscal 

year. 

Inflation and General Schedule raises 

must also be taken into account in the 

computation of costs. We have reduced 

processing costs through issuing a single 

Federal Register notice to announce 

import eligibility decisions made on 

multiple vehicles and achieved other 

efficiencies through improved 

computerization methods. Despite the 

cost savings that have accrued from 

these practices, we have had to devote 

an increasing share of staff time in the 

past two years to the review and 

processing of import eligibility petitions 

owing to a proportionately greater 

number of comments being submitted in 

response to these petitions, as well as 

complications that result when the 

petitioner or one or more commenters 

request confidentiality for information 

they submit to the agency. Additional 

staff time is also needed to analyze the 

petitions and any comments received 

owning to new requirements being 

adopted in the FMVSS. Despite the 

additional resources that are needed to 

review import eligibility petitions, we 

are not increasing the current fee of 

$175 that covers the initial processing of 

a ‘‘substantially similar’’ petition. 

Instead, as discussed below, we are 

addressing these additional costs by 

increasing the pro-rata share of petition 

costs that are assessed against the 

importer of each vehicle covered by the 

decision to grant import eligibility. 

Likewise, we are also maintaining the 

existing fee of $800 to cover the initial 

costs for processing petitions for 

vehicles that have no substantially 

similar U.S.-certified counterpart. 

In the event that a petitioner requests 

an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for 

such an inspection will increase to $827 

from $550 for vehicles that are the 

subject of either type of petition. This 

$277 increase reflects current per diem 

and airfare costs. 

Importers of vehicles determined to 

be eligible for importation pay, upon the 

importation of those vehicles, a pro-rata 

share of the total cost for making the 

eligibility decision. The importation fee 

varies depending upon the basis on 

which the vehicle is determined to be 

eligible. For vehicles covered by an 

eligibility decision on the agency’s own 

initiative (other than vehicles imported 

from Canada that are covered by VSA 

Nos. 80–83, for which no eligibility 

decision fee is assessed), the fee will 

remain $125. NHTSA determined that 

the costs associated with previous 

eligibility determinations on the 

agency’s own initiative were fully 

recovered by October 1, 2000. We apply 

the fee of $125 per vehicle only to 

vehicles covered by determinations 

made by the agency on its own initiative 

on or after October 1, 2000.

The agency’s costs for making an 

import eligibility decision pursuant to a 

petition are borne in part by the 

petitioner and in part by the importers 

of vehicles imported under the petition. 

In 2003, the most recent year for which 

complete data exists, the agency 

expended over $99,000 in making 

import eligibility decisions based on 

petitions. The petitioners paid nearly 

$9,000 of that amount in the processing 

fees that accompanied the filing of their 

petitions, leaving the remaining $90,000 

to be recovered from the importers of 

the nearly 600 vehicles imported that 

year pursuant to petition-based import 

eligibility decisions. Dividing $90,000 

by 600 yields a pro-rata fee of $150 for 

each vehicle imported pursuant to an 

eligibility decision that resulted from 

the granting of a petition. The agency is 

proposing this as the pro-rata fee to be 

paid by the importer of each such 

vehicle. The same $150 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. This represents an 

increase of $45 over the $105 that is 

currently paid by the importers of 

vehicles determined eligible based on 

their substantial similarity to a U.S.-

certified vehicle, and an increase of $25 

over the $125 that is currently paid by 

the importers of vehicles determined 

57872 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

eligible based on their capability of 

being modified to comply. 

Section 594.9—Fee To Recover the Costs 

of Processing the Bond 

Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a 

registered importer to pay any other fees 

the Secretary of Transportation 

establishes ‘‘* * * to pay for the costs 

of—(A) processing bonds provided to 

the Secretary of the Treasury * * *’’

upon the importation of a 

nonconforming vehicle to ensure that 

the vehicle will 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. 

Customs now exercises 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 2003 and 2004 and the 

inclusion of costs for benefits that were 

previously omitted, we are increasing 

the processing fee by $3.10, from $6.20 

per bond to $9.30. This fee would more 

closely reflect the direct and indirect 

costs that are actually associated with 

processing the bonds. 

Section 594.10—Fee for Review and 

Processing of Conformity Certificate 

Each RI is currently required to pay 

$18 per vehicle to cover the costs the 

agency incurs in reviewing a certificate 

of conformity. We have found that these 

costs continue to average $18 per 

vehicle for vehicles for which a paper 

entry and fee payment is made, and we 

therefore are not changing this fee. 

However, if a RI enters a vehicle 

through the Automated Broker Interface 

(ABI) system, has an e-mail address to 

receive communications from NHTSA, 

and pays the fee by credit card, the cost 

savings that we realize allow us to 

significantly reduce the fee to $6.00. We 

are maintaining the fee of $6.00 per 

vehicle if all the information in the ABI 

entry is correct. Errors in ABI entries not 

only eliminate any timesavings, but also 

require additional staff time to be 

expended in reconciling the erroneous 

ABI entry information to the conformity 

data that is ultimately submitted. Recent 

experience with these errors has shown 

that staff members must examine 

records, make time-consuming long 

distance telephone calls, and often 

consult supervisory personnel to resolve 

the conflicts in the data. We have 

calculated this staff and supervisory 

time, as well as the telephone charges, 

to amount to approximately $42 for each 

erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the 

$6 fee for the review of conformity 

packages on automated entries yields a 

total of $48, representing a $30 increase 

over the fee that is currently charged 

when there are errors to resolve in the 

entry or in the statement of conformity. 

We are adopting this $48 fee to review 

each conformity package for which 

there are one or more errors in the ABI 

entry or in the statement of conformity. 

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.’’ Fiscal year 2005 

begins on October 1, 2004. In the NPRM, 

we proposed to make this rule effective 

October 1, 2004, and did not receive any 

comments on this issue. In order to meet 

the statutory deadline, the agency finds 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that it has good 

cause to make this final rule effective 

less than thirty days after its publication 

in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the 

effective date of this final rule is 

October 1, 2004.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking is not 

significant. Accordingly, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed this rulemaking document 

under Executive Order 12886. Further, 

NHTSA has determined that the 

rulemaking is not significant under 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. 

Based on the level of the fees and the 

volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA 

currently anticipates that the costs of 

the final rule will 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 will be no 

substantial effect upon State and local 

governments. There will 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 

The agency has also considered the 

effects of this rulemaking action under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.). I certify that this action 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 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

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 will face significant 

problems paying the fees adopted as a 

result of this action. In most instances, 

these fees will be only modestly 

increased (and in some instances 

decreased) from the fees previously 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 57873

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implication, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or NHTSA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

The amendments adopted in this 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. 

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 will not have a 

significant effect upon the environment 

because it is anticipated that the annual 

volume of motor vehicles imported 

through registered importers will not 

vary significantly from that existing 

before promulgation of the rule. 

E. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rule will not have any retroactive 

or preemptive effect. Judicial review of 

this 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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 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). Because this 

final rule will not require the 

expenditure of resources beyond $100 

million annually, no Unfunded 

Mandates assessment has been 

prepared. 

G. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

President’s memorandum of June 1, 

1998, require each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. Application of 

the principles of plain language 

includes consideration of the following 

questions:

—Have we organized the material to suit 

the public’s needs? 

—Are the requirements in the proposed 

rule clearly stated? 

—Does the proposed rule contain 

technical language or jargon that is 

unclear? 

—Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of heading, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

—Would more (but shorter) sections be 

better? 

—Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

—What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand?

No responses to these questions were 

included in the comments submitted on 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. We 

have endeavored to abide by these 

principles in the preparation of this 

final rule. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. This rule requires no 

information collections. 

I. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 applies to any 

rule that (1) is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned rule is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rulemaking is not economically 

significant.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles.

■ 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:

PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES 

AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141

■ 1. The authority citation for part 594 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 

9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

■ 2. Section 594.6 is amended by;

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a);

■ b. Revising paragraph (b);

■ c. Revising paragraph (d);

■ d. Revising the final sentence of 

paragraph (h); and

■ e. Revising paragraph (i) to read as 

follows:

§ 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, 2004, 

must pay an annual fee of $830, 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, 2004, is $537. The sum 

of $537, 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, 2004, is set forth in 

paragraph (i) of this section. This 

portion shall be refundable if the 

application is denied, or withdrawn 

before final action upon it.

* * * * *

(h) * * * This cost is $20.07 per manhour for the period beginning October 1, 

2004. 

(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, 2004, is $537. When added 

to the costs of registration of $293, as set 

forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the 

costs per applicant to be recovered 

through the annual fee are $830. The 

annual renewal registration fee for the 

period beginning October 1, 2004, is 

$745.

■ 3. Section 594.7 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 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, 2004, the fee payable for 

seeking a determination under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. 

57874 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

The fee payable for a petition seeking a 

determination under paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section is $800. If the petitioner 

requests an inspection of a vehicle, the 

sum of $827 shall be added to such fee. 

No portion of this fee is refundable if 

the petition is withdrawn or denied.

* * * * *

■ 4. Section 594.8 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and by revising 

the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read 

as follows:

§ 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 $150. The direct and indirect 

costs that determine the fee are those set 

forth in § 594.7(b), (c), and (d). 

(c) If a determination has been made 

on or after October 1, 2004, pursuant to 

the Administrator’s initiative, the fee for 

each vehicle is $125. * * *

■ 5. Section 594.9 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond 

processing costs.

* * * * *

(c) The bond processing fee for each 

vehicle imported on and after October 1, 

2004, for which a certificate of 

conformity is furnished, is $9.30.

■ 6. Section 594.10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 594.10 Fee for review and processing of 

conformity certificate.

* * * * *

(d) The review and processing fee for 

each certificate of conformity submitted 

on and after October 1, 2004 is $18. 

However, if the vehicle covered by the 

certificate has been entered 

electronically with the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security through the 

Automated Broker Interface and the 

registered importer submitting the 

certificate has an e-mail address, the fee 

for the certificate is $6, provided that 

the fee is paid by a credit card issued 

to the registered importer. If NHTSA 

finds that the information in the entry 

or the certificate is incorrect, requiring 

further processing, the processing fee 

shall be $48.

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–21723 Filed 9–23–04; 3:56 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 040618188–4265–02; I.D. 

061404A]

RIN 0648–AS26

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 16–3; 

Corrections

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 16–3 to the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 

16–3 amended the FMP to include 

overfished species rebuilding plans for 

bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and 

yelloweye rockfish within the FMP. 

This final rule adds two rebuilding 

parameters to the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) for each overfished 

stock, the target year for rebuilding and 

the harvest control rule. Amendment 

16–3 addressed the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect and 

rebuild overfished species managed 

under a Federal FMP. Amendment 16–

3 also responded to a Court order in 

which NMFS was ordered to provide 

Pacific Coast groundfish rebuilding 

plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or 

regulations, per the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This rule also updates the list of 

rockfish species defined in the CFR to 

match those listed in the FMP and 

contains corrections to 50 CFR part 660, 

subpart G.

DATES: Effective October 28, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 16–

3 and the final environmental impact 

statement/regulatory impact review/

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FEIS/RIR/IRFA) and the Record of 

Decision (ROD) are available from 

Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 

Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503–820–

2280. These documents are also 

available online at the Council’s website 

at http://www.pcouncil.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jamie Goen (Northwest Region, NMFS), 

phone: 206–526–4646; fax: 206–526–

6736 or; e-mail: jamie.goen@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

The proposed and final rules for this 

action are accessible via the Internet at 

the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

index.html. Background information 

and documents are available at the 

NMFS Northwest Region website at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/

gdfsh01.htm and at the Council’s 

website at http://www.pcouncil.org.

Background

Amendment 16–3 revised the FMP to 

include overfished species rebuilding 

plans for bocaccio, cowcod, widow 

rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. This 

final rule implements Amendment 16–

3 by adding two rebuilding parameters, 

the target year in which the stock would 

be rebuilt under the adopted rebuilding 

plan (TTARGET) and the harvest control 

rule, to the CFR at 50 CFR 660.365 for 

each overfished stock.

Amendment 16–3 addressed the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to protect and rebuild overfished 

species managed under a Federal FMP. 

Amendment 16–3 also responded to a 

Court order in Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Inc. v. Evans, 168 F. 

Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. Cal 2001,), in 

which NMFS was ordered to provide 

Pacific Coast groundfish rebuilding 

plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or 

regulations, per the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act.

A Notice of Availability for 

Amendment 16–3 was published on 

June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34116). NMFS 

requested comments on the amendment 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act FMP 

amendment review provisions for a 60–

day comment period, ending August 17, 

2004. A proposed rule was published on 

July 7, 2004 (69 FR 40851), requesting 

public comment through August 17, 

2004. During the Amendment 16–3 and 

proposed rule comment period, NMFS 

received three letters of comment. These 

letters are addressed later in the 

preamble to this final rule. The 

preamble to the proposed rule for this 

action provides additional background 

information on the fishery and on this 

final rule. Further detail on Amendment 

16–3 also appears in the FEIS/RIR/IRFA 

for this action, which was prepared by 

the Council.

After consideration of the public 

comments received on the amendment, 

NMFS approved Amendment 16–3 on 

September 2004. As required by the 

standards established by Amendment 

16–1, the rebuilding plans adopted 

under Amendment 16–3 for bocaccio, 

cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye