Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57793 

Source of flooding and location of referenced elevation 

*Elevation in feet 

(NGVD) 

modified 

Communities affected 

Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Plaza, 114 West Commerce, 7th Floor, San Antonio, Texas. 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: September 26, 2005. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Acting Director, Mitigation Division, 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 05–19815 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 591, 592 and 594 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8159; Notice 3] 

RIN 2127–AJ63 

Certification; Importation of Vehicles 

and Equipment Subject to Federal 

Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention 

Standards; Registered Importers of 

Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured 

To Conform to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards; Schedule of 

Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; response to a petition 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for reconsideration of the 

August 24, 2004 final rule that amended 

regulations pertaining to the 

importation by registered importers 

(RIs) of motor vehicles that were not 

originally manufactured to comply with 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety, bumper, and theft prevention 

standards. The agency is not adopting 

the changes requested in the petition, 

except for one asking the agency to 

allow RIs to import motor vehicles that 

have been modified to comply with the 

Theft Prevention Standard and one 

asking the agency to allow an imported 

nonconforming motor vehicle to be 

operated on public roads prior to bond 

release solely for the purpose of 

conducting required EPA testing. Also, 

the agency has decided to eliminate the 

requirement for applicants for RI status 

to submit to the agency the social 

security numbers of its principals. 

DATES: The amendments in this rule are 

effective on November 3, 2005. This 

final rule amends the final rule 

published on August 24, 2004 (69 FR 

52070), which was effective on 

September 30, 2004. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by November 18, 2005 

and should refer to this docket and the 

notice number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact 

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Room 6111, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590; Telephone: (202) 366–3151. For 

legal issues, you may contact Michael 

Goode, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Telephone: (202) 366–5263. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. New Information Required Under 

Final Rule To Acquire and Maintain RI 

Registration 

On August 24, 2004, NHTSA 

published (69 FR 52070) a final rule 

amending the agency’s regulations that 

pertain to the importation by RIs of 

motor vehicles that were not originally 

manufactured to comply with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, 

bumper, and theft prevention standards. 

The agency noted that some RIs have 

engaged in conduct that, while not 

expressly prohibited by the RI 

regulations previously in effect, was 

nevertheless in need of scrutiny. See 69 

FR at 52073. To address concerns about 

this conduct, the amendments require, 

among other things, that RIs and 

applicants for RI status submit 

additional information beyond what 

they had previously been required to 

submit to acquire and maintain their 

registrations. 

One of the information items that 

each RI and applicant for RI status is 

required to submit under the final rule 

is the social security number of each of 

its principals or partners and each 

person authorized to sign statements 

certifying to NHTSA that vehicles the RI 

has imported or modified conform to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

and bumper standards. As stated in the 

final rule at 52074, the agency decided 

to require this information so that it 

could determine whether any person 

associated with an applicant has ever 

been convicted of a misdemeanor or 

felony involving motor vehicles or the 

motor vehicle business. 

B. Practices Prohibited Under Final 

Rule. 

1. Importing Salvage or Reconstructed 

Motor Vehicles 

The final rule also identified and 

proscribed certain practices of RIs that 

were not specifically addressed by the 

previously existing RI regulations 

because they were not contemplated at 

the time those regulations were adopted 

in 1989. Among these were efforts on 

the part of some RIs to import heavily 

damaged motor vehicles both before and 

after their repair (referred to as ‘‘salvage 

vehicles’’), or vehicles comprised of the 

body of one vehicle and the chassis and 

frame of another (referred to as 

‘‘reconstructed vehicles’’). The agency 

noted that there can be no assurance 

that a salvage or reconstructed motor 

vehicle can be restored to a condition in 

which it complies or can be brought into 

compliance with the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). See 

69 FR at 52089. As a consequence, the 

agency adopted a requirement in the 

final rule (49 CFR 591.5(f)(3)) for the 

importer to declare at the time of entry 

that the ‘‘vehicle is not a salvage motor 

vehicle or a reconstructed motor 

vehicle.’’

The agency also adopted definitions 

for each of these terms, which were 

added to those in 49 CFR 591.4. Under 

those definitions, a ‘‘reconstructed 

motor vehicle means a motor vehicle 

whose body is less than 25 years old 

and which is mounted on a chassis or 

frame that is not its original chassis or 

frame and that is less than 25 years 

old.’’ A ‘‘salvage motor vehicle’’ means: 

A motor vehicle, whether or not 

repaired, which has been: 

(1) Wrecked, destroyed, or damaged, to the 

extent that the total estimated or actual cost 

of parts and labor to rebuild or reconstruct 

the motor vehicle to its pre-accident 

condition and for legal operation on the 

streets, roads, or highways, exceeds 75 

percent of its retail value at the time it was 

wrecked, destroyed, or damaged; or 

57794 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Wrecked, destroyed, or damaged, to 

which an insurance company acquires 

ownership pursuant to a damage settlement 

(other than a damage settlement in 

connection with a recovered theft vehicle 

unless such motor vehicle sustained 

sufficient damage to meet the 75 percent 

threshold specified in the first sentence); or 

(3) Voluntarily designated as such by its 

owner, without regard to the extent of the 

motor vehicle’s damage and repairs. 

2. Releasing Custody of Vehicle, or 

Titling Vehicle in a Name Other Than 

the RI’s, Prior to Bond Release 

The agency observed in the preamble 

to the final rule that an RI may license 

or register an imported motor vehicle for 

use on public roads, or release custody 

of a motor vehicle to a person for license 

or registration for use on public roads 

‘‘only after 30 days after the registered 

importer certifies [to NHTSA] that the 

motor vehicle complies [with applicable 

FMVSS].’’ See 69 FR at 52082, quoting 

49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1). An RI performs 

this function by submitting to the 

agency a statement certifying that the 

vehicle complies with all applicable 

standards in effect on its date of 

manufacture, supported by 

documentary and photographic 

evidence of the modifications that it 

made to the vehicle to achieve 

conformity with those standards. This 

submission is commonly referred to as 

a ‘‘conformity package.’’ The agency 

noted in the final rule that it has 

construed 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) as 

allowing an RI to license or register a 

vehicle, or release custody of a vehicle 

for use on public roads less than 30 days 

after receipt of the conformity package 

if NHTSA has notified the RI that the 

DOT Conformance bond furnished for 

the vehicle at the time of importation 

has been released. Id. The agency 

further noted that it has attempted to 

accommodate RIs by expediting the 

process for releasing Conformance 

bonds, and had been able in 2002 to 

achieve a reduction in the processing 

time to an average of five days from the 

receipt of the conformity package. Id. 

Despite these efforts to reduce the 

processing time for the release of 

Conformance bonds, the agency noted 

that ‘‘in some instances vehicles 

imported from Canada have been 

shipped directly to auction houses or 

dealers and sold very soon after entry, 

before bonds were released, and in some 

instances, even before we had received 

a certification of conformity from the 

RI.’’ Id. 

To curtail these practices, in the final 

rule the agency adopted certain 

measures to better ensure that RIs retain 

imported nonconforming vehicles for 

the requisite period before they are 

released for use on public roads. Among 

these is a provision (added to 49 CFR 

592.6(e)(5)) stating that an RI may not 

‘‘release custody of [a motor vehicle it 

imports] to a person for sale, or for 

license or registration for use on public 

streets, roads, and highways, or for 

titling in a name other than that of the 

Registered Importer who imported the 

vehicle’’ until the DOT Conformance 

bond furnished for the vehicle at the 

time of importation has been released or 

until 30 days have elapsed from the date 

the RI submits a conformity package 

covering the vehicle to NHTSA. As part 

of the final rule, NHTSA also amended 

the provision on bond forfeiture at 49 

CFR 592.9(e) to state that a bond may be 

forfeited if an RI ‘‘licenses or registers 

the vehicle, including titling the vehicle 

in the name of another person, unless 30 

calendar days have elapsed after the 

Registered Importer has filed a complete 

certification [of conformity].’’

C. Duties of a Registered Importer 

Amended Under the Final Rule 

The final rule amended 49 CFR 592.6, 

which specifies the duties of a 

registered importer, to address specific 

problematic activities by some RIs and 

to clarify the duties of an RI. One of the 

amendments to 49 CFR 592.6 requires 

an RI to certify, at the time it submits 

a conformity package for a 

nonconforming vehicle it has imported, 

either that the vehicle is not required to 

comply with the parts marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard at 49 CFR Part 541, or that the 

vehicle complied with those 

requirements as originally 

manufactured. See 49 CFR 592.6(d)(1)(i) 

and (ii). Another new requirement, 

specified at 49 CFR 592.6(d)(7), is for 

the RI to submit to the agency, as part 

of the conformity data for the second 

and each subsequent vehicle of a 

particular make, model, and model year 

that it brings into conformity with all 

applicable standards, information 

including a description of the 

modifications performed 

(§ 592.6(d)(1)(ii)), unaltered front, side, 

and rear photographs of the vehicle 

(§ 592.6(d)(1)(vi)), and unaltered 

photographs and documentation 

sufficient to demonstrate conformity 

with all applicable Federal motor 

vehicle safety and bumper standards to 

which the vehicle was not originally 

manufactured to conform 

(§ 592.6(d)(1)(viii)). A third requirement, 

specified at 49 CFR 592.6(j)(1), is for the 

RI to allow representatives of NHTSA, 

upon demand and the presentation of 

credentials, to inspect facilities where a 

vehicle for which the RI has submitted 

a certificate of conformity to the agency 

is being modified, repaired, or stored, 

and any facility where any record or 

other document relating to the 

modification, repair, testing or storage of 

such a vehicle is kept. A fourth 

requirement, at 49 CFR 592.6(e)(1), 

prohibits an RI, prior to the release of 

the DOT Conformance bond furnished 

for a vehicle at the time of importation, 

from operating the vehicle on the public 

streets, roads, and highways for a 

purpose other than transportation to and 

from a franchised dealership of the 

vehicle’s original manufacturer for 

remedying a noncompliance or a safetyrelated defect. 

D. Suspension and Revocation of 

Registered Importer Registrations 

The final rule also amended 49 CFR 

592.7, which specifies the acts and 

omissions that may result in the 

suspension or revocation of an RI’s 

registration, as well as the process for 

taking such action and the conditions 

for reinstating a suspended registration. 

One provision of that section 

(§ 592.7(a)(2)) states that NHTSA may 

automatically suspend an RI’s 

registration if the Administrator decides 

that the RI has knowingly filed a false 

or misleading certification with the 

agency. 

E. Petition for Reconsideration 

In response to the final rule, the 

agency received one petition for 

reconsideration. This was submitted by 

Mr. Philip Trupiano of Auto 

Enterprises, Inc., an RI located in 

Warren, Michigan. The petition offered 

various objections and suggestions. In 

the petition, Mr. Trupiano takes 

exception to some aspects of the 

requirement in the final rule that bars 

RIs from importing salvage vehicles. 

The petition also challenges NHTSA’s 

authority to seek forfeiture of a DOT 

conformance bond if an RI licenses or 

titles the vehicle covered by the bond 

less than 30 days after submitting to 

NHTSA conformance certification data 

on that vehicle. The petition further 

seeks the amendment of the provision in 

the final rule requiring an RI to divulge 

to the agency the social security 

numbers of its principals. The requested 

amendment would restrict access to that 

information and ensure that it is used 

only for the purpose of carrying out the 

vehicle safety laws administered by 

NHTSA. In addition, the petition seeks 

amendments to a provision of the final 

rule enumerating the responsibilities of 

an RI. The requested amendments 

would permit RIs to import motor 

vehicles that have been modified to 

comply with the Theft Prevention 

Standard, would waive the requirement 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57795 

for an RI to submit information and 

photographs to document the 

modifications that it makes to a 

nonconforming vehicle, would require 

the agency to provide an RI with at least 

48 hours advance notice before 

inspecting one of its facilities, and 

would allow an RI who is also an 

Independent Commercial Importer (ICI) 

licensed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to operate a 

vehicle on public roads to conduct 

testing required by that agency. Lastly, 

the petition seeks the amendment of 

provisions specifying the acts and 

omissions that may result in the 

revocation or suspension of an RI’s 

registration. The requested amendment 

would make an RI’s registration subject 

to automatic suspension for knowingly 

filing ‘‘a fraudulent certification’’

instead of a ‘‘false or misleading 

certification.’’ Each of these issues is 

addressed below: 

II. Discussion 

A. Prohibition Upon the Importation of 

Salvage Vehicles 

The final rule includes a requirement 

for the importer of a motor vehicle to 

declare at the time of entry that the 

‘‘vehicle is not a salvage motor vehicle 

or a reconstructed motor vehicle. See 49 

CFR 591.5(f)(3). The petitioner agrees 

with the principle that salvage vehicles 

should be prohibited from entry and 

that vehicles that are not capable of 

being repaired to comply with the 

FMVSS should not be allowed on 

American roads. He contends, however, 

than an RI may lack knowledge that any 

given vehicle it is importing is a 

repaired salvage vehicle if the repairs to 

that vehicle were properly done. As a 

consequence, the petitioner asserts that 

the prohibition upon the importation of 

salvage vehicles is not practical, is 

overly restrictive, and wrongly assumes 

that RIs are capable of determining 

whether any vehicle they import is a 

repaired salvage vehicle. Moreover, the 

petitioner contends that this prohibition 

has no clear statutory basis and could 

subject to civil liability an RI who 

unknowingly imports a salvage vehicle. 

The petitioner observes that there are 

providers of vehicle history information 

who can identify whether a particular 

vehicle had been assigned a previous 

salvage or rebuilt brand. In view of the 

availability of this information, the 

petitioner asks NHTSA to require the RI 

to perform a computer database search 

of Canadian motor vehicle registration 

records covering every Canadian 

province or territory to determine 

whether the vehicle has ever had a 

salvage or rebuilt brand, and to provide 

a copy of the search confirming no prior 

salvage history as part of the 

documentation it submits to the agency 

to certify that the vehicle conforms to all 

applicable standards. In addition to, or 

as an alternative to this requirement, the 

petitioner states that the agency should 

require the RI to employ on a full-time 

basis a licensed collision repair 

mechanic, or where such licensing is 

not required, a mechanic holding an 

Automotive Service Excellence (‘‘ASE’’) 

certification in collision repair to 

inspect vehicles for evidence of repaired 

damage. If the agency chooses not to 

adopt either of the above suggestions, 

the petitioner asks that it change the 

operative language of 49 CFR 591.5(f)(3) 

to restrict the importation of repaired 

salvage vehicles only when the RI has 

knowledge of that status. 

Agency response: The agency is 

denying petitioner’s request. The 

rationale for adopting the prohibition on 

the importation of salvage or 

reconstructed vehicles was stated in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that preceded the final rule. There, the 

agency stated that ‘‘when a vehicle has 

been heavily damaged or reconstructed, 

we have no assurance that it can be 

restored to a condition in which it 

complies, or can be brought into 

compliance with, the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards.’’ See 65 FR at 

69824. An RI would face a significant 

burden in proving, to the agency’s 

satisfaction, that a vehicle that has been 

heavily damaged or reconstructed has 

been brought into compliance with all 

applicable FMVSS. Absent such proof, 

there would be no basis on which the 

agency could release the DOT 

Conformance bond furnished for the 

vehicle at the time of entry. 

To avoid these problems, the 

provision adopted in the final rule 

requires RIs to file a declaration, at the 

time of entry, stating that the vehicle is 

not a salvage motor vehicle or a 

reconstructed motor vehicle. This 

declaration is to be made on the HS–7 

Declaration form, which is the official 

NHTSA form required to import a motor 

vehicle. To make such a declaration, it 

is incumbent upon the RI to determine 

that the vehicle to be imported is not a 

salvage motor vehicle or a reconstructed 

motor vehicle. There are various ways to 

assure that the vehicle has not been 

salvaged or rebuilt. 

The petitioner suggests two 

alternative methods to determine 

whether the vehicle is a salvage or a 

reconstructed vehicle—a computer 

database search of registration records 

or an inspection by a certified collision 

specialist. The petitioner specifically 

recommends that RIs be required to 

perform a computer database search of 

Canadian motor vehicle registration 

records covering every Canadian 

province or territory to determine 

whether the vehicle has ever had a 

salvage or a rebuilt brand. The agency 

notes that it rejected a similar request, 

made in response to the NPRM. The 

request there in issue sought an 

amendment requiring RIs to conduct 

lien searches across Canada and then to 

provide a statement regarding this 

research on each vehicle they import, to 

ensure that there are no outstanding 

Canadian liens on the vehicle. See 69 

FR at 52075. 

NHTSA’s regulation imposes a 

requirement to preclude the importation 

of salvage motor vehicles and rebuilt 

motor vehicles. The agency will not 

delete this requirement and substitute in 

its place steps that may be taken to 

achieve this end result. While it 

recognizes that the computer database 

search recommended by the petitioner 

may be helpful in certain circumstances, 

NHTSA is not requiring that such a 

search be performed. RIs are 

nevertheless free to perform the 

computer database search the petitioner 

suggests to assess whether a particular 

vehicle is a salvage or a reconstructed 

motor vehicle. 

The agency also rejected a comment 

to the NPRM requesting an amendment 

similar to the petitioner’s other 

alternative—to require the RI to employ 

on a full-time basis a licensed collision 

repair mechanic, or where such 

licensing is not required, an ASE 

certification in collision repair to 

inspect vehicles for evidence of repaired 

damage. The comment addressed in the 

final rule recommended that NHTSA 

require that an RI be specifically 

licensed to operate as a motor vehicle 

repair facility and to have at least one 

employee who is a licensed mechanic in 

the State where the RI is located. See 69 

FR at 52076. In rejecting this comment, 

the agency stated that it is not 

conversant with the laws of the various 

States that relate to this issue, and 

observed that there may be some that do 

not require the licensing of auto repair 

mechanics. Id. For the same reason, the 

agency is unwilling to accept the 

petitioner’s suggestion that it require RIs 

to employ full-time mechanics licensed 

in collision repair to inspect vehicles for 

evidence of repaired damage. However, 

the agency recognizes that inspection of 

the vehicle by a repair specialist would 

often be a reasonable approach for RIs 

to take. Any such inspection would 

have to occur following the vehicle’s 

importation into the United States, and 

therefore could not provide the basis for 

the importer’s declaration at the time of 

57796 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

entry that the vehicle is not a salvage 

motor vehicle or a reconstructed motor 

vehicle. 

The petitioner expressed concern that 

the provision at issue could subject to 

civil liability an RI that unknowingly 

imports a salvage or a reconstructed 

motor vehicle. The agency recognizes 

that sanctions, such as civil penalties or 

the suspension or revocation of an RI 

registration, could be brought against an 

RI that files a false declaration, i.e., one 

that declares that a vehicle is not a 

salvage or a reconstructed vehicle if it 

is discovered after importation that the 

vehicle is, in fact, such a vehicle. In 

these circumstances, the agency gives 

consideration to the circumstances of 

the violation. See e.g., 49 U.S.C. 

30165(b) (‘‘In determining the amount of 

a civil penalty or compromise, the 

appropriateness of the penalty or 

compromise to the * * * gravity of the 

violation shall be considered.’’). See 

also 49 CFR 592.7(b), affording an RI 

that is notified that its registration may 

be suspended or revoked ‘‘an 

opportunity to present data, views, and 

arguments * * * as to whether the 

violation occurred, why the registration 

ought not be suspended or revoked, or 

whether the suspension should be 

shorter than proposed.’’). An RI that 

faced civil penalties or the revocation or 

suspension of its registration for 

improperly declaring a salvage or 

reconstructed vehicle could therefore 

raise its documented due diligence as a 

factor that may mitigate a penalty or 

other sanction. 

In view of these considerations, the 

agency will not amend the language of 

49 CFR 591.5(f)(3) to qualify the 

declaration in the manner the petitioner 

has suggested. 

B. Forfeiture of Conformance Bond for 

Failure To Retain Custody of Imported 

Nonconforming Vehicle 

The petitioner also takes issue with 

provisions in the final rule (49 CFR 

591.8(d)(3) and 592.9(e)) that prohibit 

an RI from releasing custody of an 

imported nonconforming motor vehicle 

to any person for license or registration 

for use on public roads, streets, or 

highways, or from licensing or 

registering the vehicle from the date of 

entry until 30 calendar days after it has 

certified compliance of the vehicle to 

the Administrator, unless the RI is 

sooner notified that the Administrator 

has accepted its certification of the 

vehicle’s compliance and permits the 

bond to be released. As amended, 

section 592.9(e) states that the bond may 

be forfeited if the RI releases custody of 

the vehicle to any person for license or 

registration for use on public roads, 

streets, or highways, or licenses or 

registers the vehicle, including titling 

the vehicle in the name of another 

person, unless 30 calendar days have 

passed from the date the RI files a 

certificate of conformity with the agency 

and the RI has not received written 

notice from the agency to hold the 

vehicle for the agency’s inspection. 

The petitioner specifically contends 

that NHTSA lacks statutory authority to 

adopt the above provisions and observes 

that if those provisions are allowed to 

stand, as amended, there will be fewer 

surety bond companies that issue 

conformance bonds and huge increases 

in the cost of such bonds to importers. 

The petitioner notes that the amount of 

the conformance bond has been set by 

the agency at 150% of the dutiable value 

of the vehicle. Observing that the 

average new car today can cost in excess 

of twenty thousand dollars, the 

petitioner states that an RI can face a 

penalty of up to thirty thousand dollars 

for failing to bring a single vehicle into 

compliance with all applicable 

standards. The petitioner questions why 

a penalty of such magnitude should be 

imposed on an RI when it has only 

defaulted on the bond conditions by 

titling or registering the vehicle within 

thirty days, or by releasing the vehicle 

after the RI has modified it to conform 

to all applicable standards and 

submitted a statement of conformity to 

the Administrator. 

The petitioner asserts that almost all 

titles obtained for vehicles imported for 

resale are ‘‘Resale’’ titles that 

specifically prohibit the licensing or 

registration of the vehicle on the public 

roads. The petitioner further observes 

that the act of titling does not place the 

vehicle on public roads, and that only 

the issuance of a license plate to the end 

user can accomplish that. Observing 

that the only purpose of the challenged 

provisions can be to further delay the 

importation process, the petitioner finds 

them out of character with the agency’s 

earlier attempt in this rulemaking 

proceeding to entirely relax the bonding 

requirement for Canadian market 

vehicles. 

The petitioner contends that under 

the controlling statute (49 U.S.C. 

30141(d)(1)), the purpose of the 

conformance bond is to ensure that the 

vehicle will comply with applicable 

FMVSS within a reasonable time after 

importation or will be exported at no 

cost to the Government or exported from 

the United States. The petitioner asserts 

that there is nothing in the controlling 

statute that confers, or appears to confer 

on the Administrator the authority to 

declare the default of a conformance 

bond under the circumstances described 

above. According to the petitioner, a 

more appropriate means for the agency 

to address violations that do not involve 

issues of compliance with the FMVSS is 

by taking civil penalty action against the 

violator. 

The petitioner requests that the 

language prohibiting titling of the 

vehicle be stricken from the provisions 

at issue, and that the agency issue 

clarification to the RI community and 

surety companies that reinforces the 

statutory language that the conformance 

bond is for the purpose of ensuring that 

a nonconforming vehicle is brought into 

compliance with applicable standards 

by an RI or is exported from, or 

abandoned to, the United States. 

Agency response: The agency is 

denying the petitioner’s request for 

these changes. Contrary to the 

petitioner’s assertions, the agency finds 

the provisions at issue to be amply 

supported by the statute that controls 

the vehicle importation process. For 

example, 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) 

explicitly provides that an RI 

may license or register an imported motor 

vehicle for use on public streets, roads, or 

highways, or release custody of a motor 

vehicle imported by the registered importer 

* * * to a person for license or registration 

for use on public streets, roads, or highways, 

only after 30 days after the registered 

importer certifies to the Secretary of 

Transportation, in the way the Secretary 

prescribes, that the motor vehicle complies 

with each standard prescribed in the year the 

vehicle was manufactured and that applies in 

that year to that vehicle. * * * A vehicle 

may not be released if the Secretary gives 

written notice before the end of the 30-day 

period that the Secretary will inspect the 

vehicle. * * * 

Consistent with this statutory 

provision, one of the conditions of the 

DOT Conformance bond, in existence 

since the regulations governing those 

instruments were first issued on March 

28, 1990 (55 FR 11375, 11379), has been 

as follows: 

In the case of a Registered Importer, not to 

release custody of the vehicle to any person 

for license or registration for use on public 

roads, streets, or highways, or license or 

register the vehicle from the date of entry 

until 30 calendar days after it has certified 

compliance of the vehicle to the 

Administrator, unless the Administrator has 

notified the principal before 30 calendar days 

that (s)he has accepted such certification, and 

that the vehicle and bond may be released, 

except that the vehicle shall not be released 

if the principal has received written notice 

from the Administrator that an inspection of 

the vehicle may be required or that there is 

reason to believe that such certification is 

false or contains a misrepresentation. 

See 49 CFR 591.8 (prior to the 

September 30, 2004 revision). This 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57797 

language is also reflected in the contents 

of the DOT Conformance bond itself. 

See condition 3 of the HS–474 Bond to 

Ensure Conformance with Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards 

(revised January 1990), a copy of which 

can be found in Appendix A to 49 CFR 

Part 591, or accessed from NHTSA’s 

Web site at www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/ 

rules/import. 

From the outset of the RI program, 

some fifteen years ago, the DOT 

Conformance bond has been subject to 

forfeiture if the RI releases custody of a 

nonconforming vehicle to any person 

for license or registration for use on 

public roads, streets, or highways, or 

licenses or registers the vehicle from the 

date of entry until 30 calendar days after 

it has certified compliance of the 

vehicle to the Administrator, unless the 

Administrator earlier releases the bond. 

The final rule has not amended this 

requirement in any respect, except to 

add titling of a vehicle in the name of 

another entity as an unlawful act. As 

noted in the NPRM (65 FR 69810, 

69820), we added this prohibition to 

ensure that the RI retains the ability to 

export the vehicle, or abandon it to the 

United States, upon demand, for its 

failure to conform the vehicle within the 

requisite period, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30141(d)(1)(B) and 49 CFR 

591.7(d)(6). 

Long before he submitted the instant 

petition, Mr. Trupiano had written to 

the agency, on November 11, 1999, 

asking whether an RI may obtain a title 

for resale purposes for a vehicle that it 

has imported, prior to the time the 

conformance bond covering the vehicle 

is released by the agency. The agency 

responded by letter dated April 17, 2000 

(accessible on the agency’s Web site at 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/ 

interps/files/title.ztv.html). We noted in 

this response that we do not construe 49 

U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) ‘‘as prohibiting an RI 

from obtaining a title in its own name 

to a vehicle it has imported for resale, 

while the vehicle is still bound by its 

[Conformance] bond, in order to 

expedite the subsequent licensing or 

registration of that vehicle for on-road 

use after the bond has been released.’’

Id. The agency stated, however, that the 

title could not be in the name of the 

customer on whose behalf the vehicle is 

imported, as that would be inconsistent 

with the bond condition requiring the 

vehicle to be exported or abandoned to 

the United States in the event that an 

insufficient showing of conformity is 

made and the bond is not released. Id. 

See 49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1)(B). The 

agency further noted that ‘‘if the RI has 

transferred or reassigned title to the 

vehicle to the ‘‘customer on whose 

behalf the vehicle is imported’’ before 

the bond has been released, the RI could 

not fulfill its duty to export or abandon 

the nonconforming vehicle because it 

would no longer own the vehicle.’’ Id. 

The agency observed that in this 

instance, its only recourse would be to 

foreclose on the bond, which would be 

‘‘insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose 

of the statute and the bond which is to 

ensure that imported noncomplying 

vehicles be brought into compliance 

before being licensed for use, and used, 

on the public roads.’’ Id. There have 

been no changes in the underlying 

statute or in the RI program itself that 

would cause the agency to reassess the 

validity of this position. 

For the same reasons cited in its letter 

to Mr. Trupiano, the agency denies his 

request that it strike from the regulation 

language prohibiting the titling of an 

imported nonconforming vehicle in the 

name of a person other than the RI prior 

to bond release. The agency notes that 

with the exception of the two instances 

in which Mr. Trupiano has raised issues 

regarding this requirement, no other RI 

has identified it as posing any problem. 

C. Requirement for an RI To Submit to 

the Agency the Social Security Numbers 

of Its Principals 

The petitioner seeks the amendment 

of provisions in the final rule (49 CFR 

592.5(a)(4)(ii) and (iii)) requiring an RI 

or an applicant for RI status to submit 

to the agency, among other information 

items needed to acquire or retain an RI 

registration, the social security numbers 

of its principals. The petitioner states 

that he understands that NHTSA 

officials reviewing RI applications or 

renewals have appropriate reasons to 

request social security numbers, 

especially to determine the applicant’s 

or incumbent’s financial ability to 

conduct recall campaigns to remedy 

safety-related defects or 

noncompliances with safety standards 

in the vehicles it imports. The petitioner 

expresses concern, however, that ‘‘other 

NHTSA employees who have no valid 

reason to have access to this private 

information may make it public with 

obvious breach of privacy and potential 

identity theft and other related 

problems.’’ To guard against such an 

eventuality, the petitioner asks the 

agency to amend the provisions in 

question to restrict access to that 

information and to ensure that it is used 

only for the purpose of carrying out the 

vehicle safety laws administered by 

NHTSA. 

Agency response: Since receiving the 

petition, the agency has reassessed the 

need for an applicant for RI status to 

submit to the agency the social security 

numbers of its principals. As previously 

noted, the agency sought this 

information so that it could determine 

whether any person associated with an 

applicant has been convicted of a 

misdemeanor or felony involving motor 

vehicles or the motor vehicle business, 

such as title fraud, odometer fraud, auto 

theft, or the sale of stolen vehicles. See 

69 FR at 52074. The agency has since 

learned that a social security number is 

not an information element that is 

needed for the purpose of conducting a 

background check on an applicant for a 

Federal license. Accordingly, the agency 

is amending sections 592.5(a)(4)(ii) and 

(iii) to eliminate the requirement for 

applicants for RI status to submit this 

information. 

D. Requested Amendments to the 

Provision Enumerating the 

Responsibilities of an RI 

The petitioner requests the agency to 

make certain amendments to 49 CFR 

592.6, which enumerates the 

responsibilities of an RI. Each of these 

requests, and the agency’s response 

thereto, is set forth below. 

1. To Permit Importation of Vehicles 

Modified To Comply With The Theft 

Prevention Standard 

The petitioner first requests the 

agency to amend section 592.6(d)(1) to 

expressly permit the importation of a 

motor vehicle modified prior to 

importation by any entity to comply 

with the Theft Prevention Standard at 

49 CFR part 541. The provision 

currently requires an RI to certify to the 

Administrator, upon the completion of 

modifications necessary to conform the 

vehicle to applicable standards, that 

either ‘‘(1) the vehicle is not required to 

comply with the parts marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard, or (2) the vehicle complies as 

manufactured with those parts marking 

requirements.’’

Agency response: In the final rule, the 

agency precluded an RI from 

conforming a motor vehicle to comply 

with the Theft Prevention Standard 

following importation. The agency took 

this position after considering a 

comment in response to the NPRM (65 

FR at 69810), which noted that the 

statute authorizing the Theft Prevention 

Standard (49 U.S.C. 33114), unlike the 

statutes authorizing the Safety and the 

Bumper Standards (49 U.S.C. 30112, 

30146, and 32506), has no provision to 

allow a vehicle that does not comply 

with that standard to be brought into 

conformity following importation. See 

69 FR at 52079. Although it recognized 

that it could not allow conforming 

modifications to be performed following 

57798 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

importation, the agency did not intend 

to preclude the importation of vehicles 

that are modified to comply with the 

Theft Prevention Standard prior to 

importation. However, the text of the 

provision adopted by the agency in 49 

CFR 592.6(d)(1) inadvertently went 

beyond this intent by prohibiting the 

importation of a vehicle that was not 

originally manufactured to comply with 

the parts marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard. Because we 

did not intend to preclude the 

importation of vehicles that are 

modified to comply with the Theft 

Prevention Standard prior to 

importation, we are amending section 

592.6(d)(1). As amended, the section 

excludes vehicles that do not comply 

with the Theft Prevention Standard at 

the time of importation, as opposed to 

those that were not originally 

manufactured to comply with that 

standard. 

2. To Waive the Requirement for an RI 

To Submit Information and Photographs 

to Document the Modifications That It 

Makes to a Nonconforming Vehicle 

The petitioner next requests the 

agency to amend 49 CFR 592.6(d)(7) to 

waive the requirement for an RI to 

submit, with second and subsequent 

certification submissions that it makes 

to the agency for a given make, model, 

and model year vehicle, unaltered front, 

side, and rear photographs of the 

vehicle, as required by 49 CFR 

592.6(d)(6)(vi); unaltered photographs 

and documentation sufficient to 

demonstrate conformity with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

and bumper standards to which the 

vehicle was not originally manufactured 

to conform, as required by 49 CFR 

592.6(d)(6)(viii); as well as a statement 

that it has brought the vehicle into 

conformity with all Federal motor 

vehicle safety and bumper standards 

that apply to the vehicle, and a 

description, with respect to each 

standard for which modifications were 

needed, of the modifications performed, 

as required by 49 CFR 592.6(d)(6)(ii). 

The petitioner contends that the 

information and photographs required 

by these sections would be redundant, 

superfluous, and create unnecessary 

additional burdens on the RI without 

providing any safety benefit to the 

public. In particular, the petitioner 

asserts that pictures of the outside of a 

car do not show any distinguishable 

differences relevant to a compliance 

evaluation, especially in the case of a 

vehicle originally manufactured for sale 

in Canada. In lieu of furnishing this 

evidence to NHTSA, the petitioner 

suggests that RIs making modifications 

to vehicles, such as the replacement of 

instrument clusters on Canadian market 

vehicles or more extensive 

modifications in the case of nonCanadian vehicles, should be required 

to maintain in their records evidence, 

including written invoices of parts 

purchases and labor operations that can 

be requested by NHTSA on an 

individual basis or viewed during an 

agency inspection visit, as contemplated 

under 49 CFR 592.6(j). 

Agency response: The agency notes 

that if it were to grant this request, it 

would essentially relieve the RI from 

any obligation to establish to the 

agency’s satisfaction, upon the 

completion of conformance 

modifications, that it has brought a 

nonconforming vehicle into compliance 

with all applicable standards. The 

agency would thereby relinquish the 

principal tool at its disposal to ensure 

that nonconforming vehicles offered for 

importation into the United States are 

successfully modified to comply with 

all applicable safety and bumper 

standards. 

The agency will not eliminate the 

need for an RI to submit documentation 

to verify the conformity status of 

nonconforming vehicle it has imported 

or modified. For one thing, the 

governing statute (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)) 

contemplates that a certification of 

compliance be made to the Secretary of 

Transportation, in the manner the 

Secretary prescribes, to permit the 

release of a conformance bond furnished 

at the time of entry. The agency further 

notes that the alternative to the 

submission of conformity data that the 

petitioner recommends (i.e., that 

NHTSA conduct periodic inspections at 

RI facilities of records, including written 

invoices of parts purchases and labor 

operations) is simply not workable since 

it is dependent on the existence of 

human and financial resources that are 

not available to the agency. The 

petitioner takes issue particularly with 

the requirement in 49 CFR 

592.6(d)(6)(vi) for the submission of 

unaltered front, side, and rear 

photographs of the vehicle. The agency 

requires these photographs so that it can 

confirm that the vehicle is of the make, 

model, and model year that it was 

declared to be at the time of 

importation, and that it is equipped 

with all required turn signal lamps, 

sidemarkers, and other lighting 

equipment. For those reasons, the 

agency has decided to deny this request. 

3. To Require the Agency To Provide an 

RI at Least 48 Hours Advance Notice 

Before Conducting an Inspection of the 

RI’s Facilities. 

The petitioner asks the agency to 

amend 49 CFR 592.6(j), which requires 

an RI to allow representatives of 

NHTSA, ‘‘upon demand and upon 

presentation of credentials,’’ to inspect 

any facility identified by the RI as one 

in which a nonconforming vehicle is 

being modified, repaired, tested, or 

stored, and any facility where any 

record or other document relating to the 

modification, repair, testing, or storage 

of these vehicles is kept. The requested 

amendment would require the agency to 

provide an RI with at least 48 hours 

advance notice before inspecting one of 

its facilities. In support of this request, 

the petitioner observes that RIs are small 

businesses with limited resources and 

employees. The petitioner contends that 

sufficient notice is necessary for these 

entities to be able to ensure that the 

appropriate personnel are on hand to 

respond to the agency official’s 

questions and to prepare to make 

available any records that may be 

requested. 

Agency response: As a general matter, 

regulatory agencies need to be able to 

conduct inspections without notice to 

obtain a true picture of whether the 

regulated entity is complying with 

applicable requirements. In contrast, 

advance notice would provide time for 

the regulated entity to undertake 

corrective actions between the time of 

the notice and the inspection. In these 

circumstances, the inspection does not 

provide a representative picture of the 

degree to which the regulated entity is 

adhering to the requirements it must 

meet. Moreover, limiting inspections to 

those preceded by advance notice 

encourages some level of 

noncompliance because the regulated 

entity knows that it will have time to 

undertake corrective measures before 

the inspection is conducted. 

The agency does periodically conduct 

inspections at RI facilities to ensure the 

adequacy of those facilities for vehicle 

modification and storage, to assess the 

state of the records the RI is required to 

maintain on the vehicles it modifies, 

and to ensure that the RI has sufficient 

personnel on hand to perform its 

responsibilities. The periodic 

inspections also allow the agency to 

ascertain whether the RI is properly 

holding vehicles prior to bond release. 

Advance notice of a pending inspection 

would significantly undermine the 

agency’s ability to ensure that these and 

other obligations of an RI are being 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57799 

carried out. As a consequence, the 

agency denies this request. 

4. To Allow Nonconforming Vehicles To 

Be Operated on Public Roads Prior to 

Bond Release for the Purpose of 

Conducting EPA Emissions Tests 

The petitioner requests an 

amendment to 49 CFR 592.6(e)(1), 

which prohibits an RI from operating on 

public streets, roads, and highways a 

nonconforming vehicle that has not 

been bond released, ‘‘for a purpose other 

than transportation to and from a 

franchised dealership of the vehicle’s 

original manufacturer for remedying a 

noncompliance or safety-related defect.’’

The requested amendment would allow 

an RI that is also an Independent 

Commercial Importer (ICI) recognized 

by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to operate a nonconforming 

vehicle on public roads prior to bond 

release ‘‘for the purpose of mileage 

accumulation to operate and stabilize 

the emissions control systems in the 

vehicle, as required by EPA prior to 

emissions laboratory testing.’’ The 

petitioner notes that this mileage is set 

by the EPA to be between 2,000 and 

10,000 miles, depending on the type of 

vehicle and the engine displacement. 

The petitioner observes that otherwise, 

the ICI could not begin the emissions 

development program until after the 

safety certification process is complete. 

Agency response: The agency 

contacted the EPA with regard to this 

matter. The EPA stated that mileage 

accumulation is needed to stabilize a 

new vehicle’s catalyst and emissions 

control systems before pre-certification 

testing is conducted to obtain an EPA 

certificate of conformity. The EPA stated 

that it prefers the mileage accumulation 

to be performed on a closed test track, 

but that it will grant permission for the 

mileage accumulation to be performed 

on public roads when the use of a test 

track is not feasible. This permission 

must be granted in writing and that 

permission will only be granted to an 

ICI that holds a current certificate of 

conformity from the EPA, and the ICI 

has imported the vehicle under an EPA 

Declaration form 3520–1 on which Code 

J is checked. The EPA further indicated 

that the amount of mileage accumulated 

is generally in the range of 2,000 miles, 

plus or minus 250 miles. 

Based on the information that it 

obtained from the EPA, the agency is 

amending the provision at issue to allow 

an imported nonconforming vehicle to 

be operated on public roads prior to 

bond release for the purpose of mileage 

accumulation to stabilize the vehicle’s 

catalyst and emissions control systems 

in preparation for pre-certification 

testing to obtain an Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) certificate of 

conformity, but only insofar as the 

vehicle has been imported by an 

Independent Commercial Importer (ICI) 

that holds a current certificate of 

conformity from the EPA, the ICI has 

imported the vehicle under an EPA 

Declaration form 3520–1 on which Code 

J is checked, and the EPA has granted 

the ICI written permission to operate the 

vehicle on public roads for that purpose. 

E. Requested Amendments to the 

Provision Specifying the Acts and 

Omissions That May Result in the 

Revocation or Suspension of an RI’s 

Registration 

The petitioner requests an 

amendment to 49 CFR 592.7(a)(2), 

which states: ‘‘If the Administrator 

decides that a Registered Importer has 

knowingly filed a false or misleading 

certification, (s)he shall promptly notify 

the Registered Importer in writing that 

its registration is automatically 

suspended.’’ The requested amendment 

would make an RI’s registration subject 

to automatic suspension for knowingly 

filing ‘‘a fraudulent certification’’

instead of a ‘‘false or misleading 

certification.’’ In support of this request, 

the petitioner contends that ‘‘such a 

drastic enforcement measure, which 

could cause irreversible harm to the RI, 

must be made only on the basis that the 

violation poses genuine harm to the 

safety of the motoring public.’’ The 

petitioner observes that even though 

‘‘automatic suspension should 

obviously not be used to punish clerical 

error,’’ use of the terminology ‘‘false or 

misleading’’ in the section at issue 

‘‘could be misconstrued and used by an 

overzealous official as the basis for 

automatically suspending an RI’s 

license.’’ For the petitioner, the basis for 

an automatic suspension should 

therefore be the filing of a ‘‘fraudulent 

certification’’ instead of a ‘‘false or 

misleading’’ one. 

Agency response: The agency notes 

that the language of § 592.7(a)(2) is 

derived from the controlling statute, 49 

U.S.C. 30141(c)(4)(B), which directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to establish 

procedures for ‘‘automatically 

suspending a registration for not paying 

a fee under subsection (a)(3) of this 

section in a timely manner or for 

knowingly filing a false or misleading 

certification under section 30146 of this 

title.’’ In light of this requirement, the 

agency will not amend the provision at 

issue in the manner petitioner has 

requested. The agency also notes that it 

disagrees with the petitioner’s 

contention that the only violations that 

can result in the suspension of an RI 

registration are those that pose genuine 

harm to the safety of the motoring 

public. 

F. Technical Amendment 

The agency is also revising the text of 

49 CFR 592.5(f) to correct two erroneous 

citations to other regulations that appear 

in that section. As presently written, 

section 592.5(f) states that an RI ‘‘must 

affirm in its annual statement that all 

information provided in its application 

or pursuant to § 592.6(r), or as may have 

been changed in any notification that it 

has provided to the Administrator in 

compliance with § 592.6(m), remains 

correct.’’ Sections 592.6(q) and 592.6(l) 

are substituted for the two provisions 

cited in this text, to correctly identify 

the provisions in which the described 

requirements are found. 

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking under Executive Order 

12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures, and for the following 

reasons has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the meaning of Sec. 3 of E.O. 12866 and 

is not ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning 

of the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. The 

three non-technical amendments 

adopted in this rulemaking, which 

57800 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

permit RIs to import motor vehicles that 

have been modified to comply with the 

Theft Prevention Standard, allow an RI 

who is also an ICI to operate an 

imported nonconforming motor vehicle 

on public roads prior to bond release 

solely for the purpose of conducting 

required EPA testing, and relieve an 

applicant for RI status of the need to 

disclose to the agency the social security 

numbers of its principals, can only 

benefit entities that stand to be affected 

and have no adverse consequences, 

financial or otherwise, for any party. 

This document was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’

For the following reasons, NHTSA 

concludes that this final rule will not 

have any quantifiable cost effect on 

motor vehicle manufacturers or motor 

vehicle equipment manufacturers. The 

three non-technical amendments 

adopted in this final rule pertain only to 

RIs and applicants for RI registration. 

They have no bearing on motor vehicle 

manufacturers or motor vehicle 

equipment manufacturers, and therefore 

have no quantifiable cost effect on those 

entities. 

Because the economic effects of this 

final rule are so minimal, no further 

regulatory evaluation is necessary. 

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 will 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 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The Deputy Administrator has 

considered the effects of this rulemaking 

action under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certifies 

that this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The statement of the factual basis for the 

certification is that this final rule, 

formulated in response to a petition for 

reconsideration, makes three nontechnical amendments to the agency’s 

regulations to allow RIs to import motor 

vehicles that have been modified to 

comply with the Theft Prevention 

Standard, to allow an RI that is also an 

ICI to operate a nonconforming motor 

vehicle on public roads prior to bond 

solely release for the purpose of 

conducting required EPA testing, and to 

relieve applicants for RI status of the 

need to disclose to the agency the social 

security numbers of their principals. As 

such, the amendments can only have a 

beneficial economic impact on the 

entities that stand to be effected, and 

imposes no adverse economic impact on 

any party. 

For these reasons, and for the reasons 

described in our discussion on 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 

NHTSA concludes that this final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed these 

amendments for the purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that they will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 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.’’ The Executive Order 

defines ‘‘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 with 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 the agency consults 

with State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the regulation. 

NHTSA also may not issue a regulation 

with Federalism implications and that 

preempts State law unless the agency 

consults with State and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action in accordance with the principles 

and criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132. The agency has determined that 

this rule will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

This rule will not have any substantial 

effects on the States, or on the current 

Federal-State relationship, or on the 

current distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. Thus, the requirements of 

Section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires federal 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 base year of 

1995). Before promulgating a rule for 

which a written assessment is needed, 

Section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires NHTSA to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and to adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of Section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 

allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

if the agency publishes with the final 

rule an explanation as to why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually. Accordingly, this rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ this agency has 

considered whether this final rule 

would have any retroactive effect. 

NHTSA concludes that this final rule 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57801 

will not have any retroactive effect. 

Judicial review of the rule may be 

obtainable under 5 U.S.C. 702. That 

section does not require submission of 

a petition for reconsideration or other 

administrative proceedings before 

parties may file suit in court. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 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 final rule eliminates an 

existing requirement for an applicant for 

RI status to submit to the agency the 

social security number of each of its 

principals, and does not impose any 

new information collection 

requirements for which a 5 CFR part 

1320 clearance must be obtained. 

H. 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 regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rulemaking does not involve any 

environmental, health, or safety risks 

that disproportionately affect children. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all submissions 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment or petition (or signing the 

comment or petition, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104–113, 

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs 

NHTSA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs the agency to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

After conducting a search of available 

sources, we have concluded that there 

are no voluntary consensus standards 

applicable to this final rule. 

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 contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 592 

Imports, Motor Vehicle Safety, Motor 

vehicles. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR part 592 is amended as follows: 

PART 592—REGISTERED IMPORTERS 

OF VEHICLES NOT ORIGINALLY 

MANUFACTURED TO CONFORM TO 

THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 592 

of Title 49 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 100–562, 49 U.S.C. 

322(a), 30117, 30141–30147; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 592.5 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4)(i); revising 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii); revising the first 

sentence in paragraph (a)(4)(iii); and 

revising the second sentence in 

paragraph (f), to read as follows: 

§ 592.5 Requirements for registration and 

its maintenance. 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) If the applicant is an individual, 

the application must include the full 

name, street address, and date of birth 

of the individual. 

(ii) If the applicant is a partnership, 

the application must include the full 

name, street address, and date of birth 

of each partner; if one or more of the 

partners is a limited partnership, the 

application must include the names and 

street addresses of the general partners 

and limited partners; if one or more of 

the partners is a corporation, the 

application must include the 

information specified by either 

paragraph (a)(4)(iii) or (iv) of this 

section, as applicable; 

(iii) If the applicant is a non-public 

corporation, the application must 

include the full name, street address, 

and date of birth of each officer, 

director, manager, and person who is 

authorized to sign documents on behalf 

of the corporation. * * * 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * The Registered Importer 

must affirm in its annual statement that 

all information provided in its 

application or pursuant to § 592.6(q), or 

as may have been changed in any 

notification that it has provided to the 

Administrator in compliance with 

§ 592.6(l), remains correct, and that it 

continues to comply with the 

requirements for being a Registered 

Importer. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 592.6 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (e)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 592.6 Duties of a registered importer. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The vehicle complies with those 

parts marking requirements as 

manufactured, or as modified prior to 

importation. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Operate the motor vehicle on the 

public streets, roads, and highways for 

any purpose other than: 

(i) Transportation to and from a 

franchised dealership of the vehicle’s 

original manufacturer for remedying a 

noncompliance or safety-related defect; 

or 

(ii) Mileage accumulation to stabilize 

the vehicle’s catalyst and emissions 

control systems in preparation for precertification testing to obtain an 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

certificate of conformity, but only 

insofar as the vehicle has been imported 

by an Independent Commercial 

Importer (ICI) who holds a current 

certificate of conformity with the EPA, 

the ICI has imported the vehicle under 

an EPA Declaration form 3520–1 on 

which Code J is checked, and the EPA 

has granted the ICI written permission 

to operate the vehicle on public roads 

for that purpose. 

* * * * * 

57802 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued: September 29, 2005. 

Jacqueline Glassman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–19843 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[I.D. 092605B] 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Closure 

of the 2005 Shallow-Water Grouper 

Commercial Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that 

the red grouper quota for the 

commercial fishery will have been 

reached by October 10, 2005, and 

therefore closes the commercial fishery 

for shallow-water grouper (red, black, 

gag, scamp, yellowfin, yellowmouth, 

rock hind, and red hind) in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the 

Gulf of Mexico. The existing regulations 

require closure of the entire shallowwater grouper commercial fishery when 

either the red grouper quota or the 

shallow-water grouper quota is reached 

or is projected to be reached. This 

closure is necessary to protect the 

shallow-water grouper resource. 

DATES: Closure is effective 12:01 a.m., 

local time, October 10, 2005, until 12:01 

a.m., local time, on January 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Rueter, telephone 727–824–5305, 

fax 727–824–5308, e-mail 

Jason.Rueter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

and is implemented under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. Those regulations 

set the commercial quota for red grouper 

in the Gulf of Mexico at 5.31 million lb 

(2,413,636 kg) for the current fishing 

year, January 1 through December 31, 

2005. Those regulations also require 

closure of the entire shallow-water 

grouper commercial fishery when either 

the red grouper quota or the shallowwater grouper quota is reached. 

Under 50 CFR 622.43(a), NMFS is 

required to close the commercial fishery 

for a species or species group when the 

quota for that species or species group 

is reached, or is projected to be reached, 

by filing a notification to that effect with 

the Office of the Federal Register. Based 

on current statistics, NMFS has 

determined the available commercial 

quota of 5.31 million lb (2,413,636 kg) 

for red grouper will be reached on or 

before October 10, 2005. Accordingly, 

NMFS is closing the commercial 

shallow-water grouper fishery in the 

Gulf of Mexico EEZ from 12:01 a.m., 

local time, on October 10, 2005, until 

12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 

2006. The operator of a vessel with a 

valid reef fish permit having shallowwater grouper aboard must have landed 

and bartered, traded, or sold such 

shallow-water grouper prior to 12:01 

a.m., local time, October 10, 2005. 

During the closure: (1) the sale or 

purchase of shallow-water grouper 

taken from the EEZ is prohibited; (2) 

when the recreational grouper fishery is 

open, the bag and possession limits 

specified in 50 CFR 622.39(b) apply to 

all harvest or possession of red grouper 

and shallow-water grouper in or from 

the Gulf of Mexico EEZ; and (3) when 

the recreational grouper fishery is 

closed, all harvest or possession of 

grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is 

prohibited. The prohibition on sale or 

purchase does not apply to sale or 

purchase of red grouper or shallowwater grouper that were harvested, 

landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 

a.m., local time, October 10, 2005, and 

were held in cold storage by a dealer or 

processor. 

Classification 

This action is required under 50 CFR 

622.43(a) and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

finds the need to immediately 

implement this action to close the 

fishery constitutes good cause to waive 

the requirements to provide prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures 

would be unnecessary and contrary to 

the public interest. Such procedures are 

unnecessary because the rule itself has 

been subject to notice and comment, 

and all that remains is to notify the 

public of the closure. Allowing prior 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment is contrary to the public 

interest because it requires time during 

which harvest would likely exceed the 

quota. Similarly, there is a need to 

implement this measure in a timely 

fashion to prevent an overage of the 

commercial quota of Gulf red grouper, 

given the capacity of the fishing fleet to 

exceed the quota quickly. Any delay in 

implementing this action would be 

impractical and contrary to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and 

the public interest. For these reasons, 

NMFS finds good cause that the 

implementation of this action cannot be 

delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delay in the 

effective date is waived. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 28, 2005. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19849 Filed 9–29–05; 2:43 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 030912231; I.D. 071905B] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Scup Fishery; Adjustment to 

the 2005 Winter II Quota; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS published a temporary 

rule in the Federal Register on August 

2, 2005, to adjust the 2005 Winter II 

commercial scup quota and possession 

limit. NMFS has since received 

information that a substantial amount of 

scup landed during the 2005 Winter I 

period were misreported as porgies via 

the Electronic Dealer Reporting System. 

This action corrects the adjusted 2005 

Winter II commercial scup quota and 

possession limit. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9279. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 

62250) implementing a process for years