Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25169 

3. Revise section 252.225–7016 to 

read as follows: 

252.225–7016 Restriction on Acquisition 

of Ball and Roller Bearings. 

As prescribed in 225.7009–5, use the 

following clause: 

RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION OF BALL 

AND ROLLER BEARINGS (DATE) 

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause— 

(1) Bearing component means the bearing 

element, retainer, inner race, or outer race. 

(2) Component, other than a bearing 

component, means any item supplied to the 

Government as part of an end product or of 

another component. 

(3) End product means supplies delivered 

under a line item of this contract. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

this clause— 

(1) Each ball and roller bearing delivered 

under this contract shall be manufactured in 

the United States, its outlying areas, or 

Canada; and 

(2) For each ball or roller bearing, the cost 

of the bearing components mined, produced, 

or manufactured in the United States or 

Canada shall exceed 50 percent of the total 

cost of the bearing components of that ball 

or roller bearing. 

(c) The restriction in paragraph (b) of this 

clause does not apply to ball or roller 

bearings that are acquired as— 

(1) Commercial components of a 

noncommercial end product; or 

(2) Commercial or noncommercial 

components of a commercial component of a 

noncommercial end product. 

(d) The restriction in paragraph (b) of this 

clause may be waived upon request from the 

Contractor in accordance with subsection 

225.7009–4 of the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement. 

(e) If this contract includes DFARS clause 

252.225–7009, Restriction on Acquisition of 

Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals, 

all bearings that contain specialty metals, as 

defined in that clause, must meet the 

requirements of that clause. 

(f) The Contractor shall insert the 

substance of this clause, including this 

paragraph (f), in all subcontracts, except 

those for— 

(1) Commercial items; or 

(2) Items that do not contain ball or roller 

bearings. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2010–10766 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 594 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2010–0035; Notice 1] 

RIN 2127–AK70 

Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 

U.S.C. 30141 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes fees 

for Fiscal Year 2011 and until further 

notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 

30141, relating to the registration of 

importers and the importation of motor 

vehicles not certified as conforming to 

the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (FMVSS). These fees are 

needed to maintain the registered 

importer (RI) program. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them no 

later than June 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket and notice numbers above 

and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–5291). 

For legal issues, you may call Nicholas 

Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA (202–366–5263). You may call 

Docket Management at 202–366–9324. 

You may visit the Docket in person from 

9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

On June 24, 1996, at 61 FR 32411, we 

published a notice that discussed in full 

the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 

594 and the fees authorized by the 

Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance 

Act of 1988, Public Law 100–562, since 

recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30141–47. The 

reader is referred to that notice for 

background information relating to this 

rulemaking action. Certain fees were 

initially established to become effective 

January 31, 1990, and have been 

periodically adjusted since then. 

We are required to review and make 

appropriate adjustments at least every 

two years in the fees established for the 

administration of the RI program. See 49 

U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in 

any fiscal year (FY) are to be established 

before the beginning of such year. Ibid. 

We are proposing fees that would 

become effective on October 1, 2010, the 

beginning of FY 2011. The statute 

authorizes fees to cover the costs of the 

importer registration program, to cover 

the cost of making import eligibility 

decisions, and to cover the cost of 

processing the bonds furnished to the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(Customs). We last amended the fee 

schedule in 2008. See final rule 

published on September 24, 2008 at 73 

FR 54981. Those fees apply to Fiscal 

Years 2009 and 2010. 

The proposed fees are based on time 

and costs associated with the tasks for 

which the fees are assessed and reflect 

the increase in hourly costs in the past 

two fiscal years attributable to the 

approximately 4.78 and 2.42 percent 

raises (including the locality adjustment 

for Washington, DC) in salaries of 

employees on the General Schedule that 

became effective on January 1, 2009, 

and on January 1, 2010, respectively. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25170 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Requirements of the Fee Regulation 

Section 594.6—Annual Fee for 

Administration of the Importer 

Registration Program 

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

Code provides that RIs must pay the 

annual fees established ‘‘* * * to pay 

for the costs of carrying out the 

registration program for importers 

***’’ This fee is payable both by new 

applicants and by existing RIs. To 

maintain its registration, each RI, at the 

time it submits its annual fee, must also 

file a statement affirming that the 

information it furnished in its 

registration application (or in later 

submissions amending that information) 

remains correct (49 CFR 592.5(f)). 

In compliance with the statutory 

directive, we reviewed the existing fees 

and their bases in an attempt to 

establish fees that would be sufficient to 

recover the costs of carrying out the 

registration program for importers for at 

least the next two fiscal years. The 

initial component of the Registration 

Program Fee is the fee attributable to 

processing and acting upon registration 

applications. We have tentatively 

determined that this fee should be 

increased from $295 to $320 for new 

applications. We have also tentatively 

determined that the fee for the review of 

the annual statement should be 

increased from $186 to $195. The 

proposed 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 

fees were last adjusted. 

We must also recover costs 

attributable to maintenance of the 

registration program that arise from the 

need for us to review a registrant’s 

annual statement and to verify the 

continuing validity of information 

already submitted. These costs also 

include anticipated costs attributable to 

the possible revocation or suspension of 

registrations and reflect the amount of 

time that we have devoted to those 

matters in the past two years. 

Based upon our review of these costs, 

the portion of the fee attributable to the 

maintenance of the registration program 

is approximately $475 for each RI, an 

increase of $10. When this $475 is 

added to the $320 representing the 

registration application component, the 

cost to an applicant for RI status comes 

to $795, which is the fee we propose. 

This represents an increase of $35 over 

the existing fee. When the $475 is added 

to the $195 representing the annual 

statement component, the total cost to 

an RI for renewing its registration comes 

to $670, which represents an increase of 

$19. 

Sec. 594.6(h) enumerates indirect 

costs associated with processing the 

annual renewal of RI registrations. The 

provision states that these costs 

represent a pro-rata allocation of the 

average salary and benefits of employees 

who process the annual statements and 

perform related functions, and ‘‘a prorata allocation of the costs attributable 

to maintaining the office space, and the 

computer or word processor.’’ For the 

purpose of establishing the fees that are 

currently in existence, indirect costs are 

$20.31 per man-hour. We are proposing 

to increase this figure by $.36, to $20.67. 

This proposed increase is based on the 

difference between enacted budgetary 

costs within the Department of 

Transportation for the last two fiscal 

years, which were higher than the 

estimates used when the fee schedule 

was last amended, and takes account of 

further projected increases over the next 

two fiscal years. 

Sections 594.7, 594.8—Fees To Cover 

Agency Costs in Making Importation 

Eligibility Decisions 

Section 30141(a)(3) also requires 

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 that NHTSA deems to be 

adequate. These decisions are made in 

response to petitions submitted by RIs 

or manufacturers, or on the 

Administrator’s own initiative. 

The fee for a vehicle imported under 

an eligibility decision made in response 

to a petition is payable in part by the 

petitioner and in part by other 

importers. The fee to be charged for 

each vehicle is the estimated pro-rata 

share of the costs in making all the 

eligibility decisions in a fiscal year. 

Inflation and General Schedule raises 

must also be taken into account in the 

computation of costs. 

The agency believes that the volume 

of petition-based imports for the next 

two fiscal years should not be projected 

on the basis of any single year. The 

agency estimates the number of vehicles 

that will be imported under an import 

eligibility petition in each year for 

Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 will equal 

the average number of such imports 

over that past five years. Further, the 

agency estimates the number of import 

eligibility petitions that will be filed in 

each year for Fiscal Years 2011 and 

2012 will equal the average number of 

petitions filed each year since 2000. 

Based on these estimates, we project 

that 554 vehicles would be imported 

under petition-based eligibility 

decisions and that 25 petition-based 

import eligibility decisions would be 

made. 

Based on these estimates, we project 

that for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012, the 

agency’s costs for processing these 25 

petitions will be $95,479. The 

petitioners will pay $8,125 of that 

amount in the processing fees that 

accompanied the filing of their 

petitions, leaving the remaining $87,354 

to be recovered from the importers of 

the 554 vehicles imported under 

petition-based import eligibility 

decisions. Dividing $87,354 by 554 

yields a pro-rata fee of $158 for each 

vehicle imported under an eligibility 

decision that resulted from the granting 

of a petition. We are therefore proposing 

to decrease the pro-rata share of petition 

costs that are to be assessed against the 

importer of each vehicle from $198 to 

$158, which represents a decrease of 

$40. The same $158 fee would be paid 

regardless of whether the vehicle was 

petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a), based 

on the substantial similarity of the 

vehicle to a U.S. certified model, or was 

petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based 

on the safety features of the vehicle 

complying with, or being capable of 

being modified to comply with, all 

applicable FMVSS. 

We are proposing no increase in the 

current fee of $175 that covers the initial 

processing of a ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

petition. Likewise, we are also 

proposing to maintain the existing fee of 

$800 to cover the initial costs for 

processing petitions for vehicles that 

have no substantially similar U.S.- 

certified counterpart. 

In the event that a petitioner requests 

an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for 

such an inspection would remain $827 

for vehicles that are the subject of either 

type of petition. 

The importation fee varies depending 

upon the basis on which the vehicle is 

determined to be eligible. For vehicles 

covered by an eligibility decision on the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25171 

agency’s own initiative (other than 

vehicles imported from Canada that are 

covered by import eligibility numbers 

VSA–80 through 83, for which no 

eligibility decision fee is assessed), we 

are proposing that the fee remain $125. 

NHTSA determined that the costs 

associated with previous eligibility 

determinations on the agency’s own 

initiative would be fully recovered by 

October 1, 2010. We propose to apply 

the fee of $125 per vehicle only to 

vehicles covered by determinations 

made by the agency on its own initiative 

on or after October 1, 2010. 

Section 594.9—Fee for Reimbursement 

of Bond Processing Costs and Costs for 

Processing Offers of Cash Deposits or 

Obligations of the United States in Lieu 

of Sureties on Bonds 

Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a 

registered importer to pay any other fees 

the Secretary of Transportation 

establishes ‘‘* * * to pay for the costs 

of—(A) processing bonds provided to 

the Secretary of the Treasury * * *’’ 

upon the importation of a 

nonconforming vehicle to ensure that 

the vehicle would be brought into 

compliance within a reasonable time, or 

if it is not brought into compliance 

within such time, that it be exported, 

without cost to the United States, or 

abandoned to the United States. 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (Customs) exercises the 

functions associated with the processing 

of these bonds. To carry out the statute, 

we make a reasonable determination of 

the costs that Department incurs in 

processing the bonds. In essence, the 

cost to Customs is based upon an 

estimate of the time that a GS–9, Step 

5 employee spends on each entry, 

which Customs has judged to be 20 

minutes. 

Based on General Schedule salary 

raises that were effective in January 

2009 and 2010 and the inclusion of 

costs for benefits, we are proposing that 

the processing fee be decreased by $.30, 

from $10.23 per bond to $9.93. This 

decrease reflects the fact that GS–9 

salaries were increased by a smaller 

amount than we previously projected 

when we last amended the fee schedule 

in 2008. The $9.93 proposed fee would 

more closely reflect the direct and 

indirect costs that should be associated 

with processing the bonds. 

In lieu of sureties on a DOT 

conformance bond, an importer may 

offer United States money, United States 

bonds (except for savings bonds), 

United States certificates of 

indebtedness, Treasury notes, or 

Treasury bills (collectively referred to as 

‘‘cash deposits’’) in an amount equal to 

the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 

591.10(a). The receipt, processing, 

handling, and disbursement of the cash 

deposits that have been tendered by RIs 

cause the agency to consume a 

considerable amount of staff time and 

material resources. NHTSA has 

concluded that the expense incurred by 

the agency to receive, process, handle, 

and disburse cash deposits may be 

treated as part of the bond processing 

cost, for which NHTSA is authorized to 

set a fee under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(3)(A). 

We first established a fee of $459 for 

each vehicle imported on and after 

October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits 

or obligations of the United States are 

furnished in lieu of a conformance 

bond. See final rule published on July 

11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890. 

The agency considered its direct and 

indirect costs in calculating the fee for 

the review, processing, handling, and 

disbursement of cash deposits 

submitted by importers and RIs in lieu 

of sureties on a DOT conformance bond. 

We are proposing to increase the fee 

from $459 to $514, which represents an 

increase of $55. The factors that the 

agency has taken into account in 

proposing the fee include time 

expended by agency personnel, the 

increase in General Schedule salary 

raises that were effective in January 

2009 and 2010, and increased contractor 

and overhead costs. 

Section 594.10—Fee for Review and 

Processing of Conformity Certificate 

Each RI is currently required to pay 

$14 per vehicle to cover the costs the 

agency incurs in reviewing a certificate 

of conformity. We estimate that these 

costs would increase from $14 to an 

average of $17 per vehicle because of 

the increase in General Schedule salary 

raises that were effective in January 

2009 and 2010, and increased contractor 

and overhead costs. Based on these 

estimates, we are proposing to increase 

the fee charged for vehicles for which a 

paper entry and fee payment is made, 

from $14 to $17, a difference of $3 per 

vehicle. However, if an RI enters a 

vehicle through the 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. We 

propose to maintain the fee of $6 per 

vehicle if all the information in the ABI 

entry is correct. 

Errors in ABI entries not only 

eliminate any time savings, but also 

require additional staff time to be 

expended in reconciling the erroneous 

ABI entry information to the conformity 

data that is ultimately submitted. Our 

experience with these errors has shown 

that staff members must examine 

records, make time-consuming long 

distance telephone calls, and often 

consult supervisory personnel to resolve 

the conflicts in the data. We have 

calculated this staff and supervisory 

time, as well the telephone charges, to 

amount to approximately $57 for each 

erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the 

$6 fee for the review of conformity 

packages on automated entries yields a 

total of $63, representing a proposed $9 

increase in the fee that is currently 

charged when there are one or more 

errors in the ABI entry or in the 

statement of conformity. 

Effective Date 

The proposed effective date of the 

final rule is October 1, 2010. 

Rulemaking Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking is not 

significant. Accordingly, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed this rulemaking document 

under Executive Order 12886. Further, 

NHTSA has determined that the 

rulemaking is not significant under 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Based on the level of the fees and the 

volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA 

currently anticipates that if made final 

the costs of the proposed rule would be 

so minimal as not to warrant 

preparation of a full regulatory 

evaluation. The action does not involve 

any substantial public interest or 

controversy. If made final there would 

be no substantial effect upon State and 

local governments. There would be no 

substantial impact upon a major 

transportation safety program. A 

regulatory evaluation analyzing the 

economic impact of the final rule 

establishing the registered importer 

program, adopted on September 29, 

1989, was prepared, and is available for 

review in the docket. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBFEFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions). 

The Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The agency has considered the effects 

of this proposed rulemaking under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies 

that if the proposed amendments are 

adopted they would not have a 

significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following is NHTSA’s statement 

providing the factual basis for the 

certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The 

proposed amendments would primarily 

affect entities that currently modify 

nonconforming vehicles and which are 

small businesses within the meaning of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, 

the agency has no reason to believe that 

these companies would be unable to pay 

the fees proposed by this action. In most 

instances, these fees would not be 

changed or be only modestly increased 

(and in some instances decreased) from 

the fees now being paid by these 

entities. Moreover, consistent with 

prevailing industry practices, these fees 

should be passed through to the 

ultimate purchasers of the vehicles that 

are altered and, in most instances, sold 

by the affected registered importers. The 

cost to owners or purchasers of 

nonconforming vehicles that are altered 

to conform to the FMVSS may be 

expected to increase (or decrease) to the 

extent necessary to reimburse the 

registered importer for the fees payable 

to the agency for the cost of carrying out 

the registration program and making 

eligibility decisions, and to compensate 

Customs for its bond processing costs. 

Governmental jurisdictions would not 

be affected at all since they are generally 

neither importers nor purchasers of 

nonconforming motor vehicles. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 on 

‘‘Federalism’’ requires NHTSA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications.’’ 

Executive Order 13132 defines the term 

‘‘policies that have federalism 

implications’’ to include regulations that 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or NHTSA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

The proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Moreover, 

NHTSA is required by statute to impose 

fees for the administration of the RI 

program and to review and make 

necessary adjustments in those fees at 

least every two years. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

rulemaking action. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this action for 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The action would not have 

a significant effect upon the 

environment because it is anticipated 

that the annual volume of motor 

vehicles imported through registered 

importers would not vary significantly 

from that existing before promulgation 

of the rule. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ this agency has 

considered whether this proposed rule 

would have any retroactive effect. 

NHTSA concludes that this proposed 

rule would not have any retroactive 

effect. Judicial review of a rule based on 

this proposal may be obtained pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not 

require that a petition for 

reconsideration be filed prior to seeking 

judicial review. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires agencies to prepare a written 

assessment of the costs, benefits, and 

other effects of proposed or final rules 

that include a Federal mandate likely to 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of more than 

$100 million annually (adjusted for 

inflation with the base year of 1995). 

Before promulgating a rule for which a 

written assessment is needed, Section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires 

NHTSA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and to adopt the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of Section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 

allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative 

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

if the agency publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Because a final rule 

based on this proposal would not 

require the expenditure of resources 

beyond $100 million annually, this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25173 

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? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this document. 

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. Part 594 includes collections of 

information for which NHTSA has 

obtained OMB Clearance No. 2127– 

0002, a consolidated collection of 

information for ‘‘Importation of Vehicles 

and Equipment Subject to the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft 

Prevention Standards,’’ approved 

through 11/30/2010. This proposed rule, 

if made final, would not affect the 

burden hours associated with Clearance 

No. 2127–0002 because we are 

proposing only to adjust the fees 

associated with participating in the 

registered importer program. These 

proposed new fees will not impose new 

collection of information requirements 

or otherwise affect the scope of the 

program. 

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 and does not concern an 

environmental, health, or safety risk. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs the agency to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

In this proposed rule, we propose to 

adjust the fees associated with the 

registered importer program. We 

propose no substantive changes to the 

program nor do we propose any 

technical standards. For these reasons, 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not 

apply. 

K. Comments 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written in 

English. To ensure that your comments 

are correctly filed in the Docket, please 

include the docket number of this 

document in your comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the beginning 

of this document, under ADDRESSES. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given at 

the beginning of this document under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, you should submit two copies 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given at the beginning of 

this document under ADDRESSES. When 

you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation, 49 CFR part 512. 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated at the beginning 

of this notice under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments that Docket Management 

receives after that date. If Docket 

Management receives a comment too 

late for us to consider in developing a 

final rule, we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

and times given near the beginning of 

this document under ADDRESSES. 

You may also see the comments on 

the Internet. To read the comments on 

the Internet, take the following steps: 

(1) Go to the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web page 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search for 

dockets.’’ 

(3) On the next page (http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/main), select NATIONAL 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION from the dropdown menu in the Agency field, enter 

the Docket ID number and title shown 

at the heading of this document, and 

select ‘‘RULEMAKING’’ from the dropdown menu in the Type field. 

(4) After entering that information, 

click on ‘‘submit.’’ 

(5) The next page contains docket 

summary information for the docket you 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

selected. Click on the comments you 

wish to see. You may download the 

comments. Although the comments are 

imaged documents, instead of the word 

processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’ 

versions of the documents are word 

searchable. Please note that even after 

the comment closing date, we will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the Docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, we recommend 

that you periodically search the Docket 

for new material. 

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN that appears 

in the heading on the first page of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

594 as follows: 

PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES 

AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141 

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. Amend § 594.6 by: 

a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a); 

b. Revising paragraph (b); 

c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (d); 

d. Revising the second 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, 2010, 

must pay an annual fee of $795, as 

calculated below, based upon the direct 

and indirect costs attributable to: 

* * * * * 

(b) That portion of the initial annual 

fee attributable to the processing of the 

application for applications filed on and 

after October 1, 2010, is $320. The sum 

of $320, representing this portion, shall 

not be refundable if the application is 

denied or withdrawn. 

* * * * * 

(d) That portion of the initial annual 

fee attributable to the remaining 

activities of administering the 

registration program on and after 

October 1, 2010, is set forth in 

paragraph (i) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * This cost is $20.67 per manhour for the period beginning October 1, 

2010. 

(i) Based upon the elements and 

indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and 

(h) of this section, the component of the 

initial annual fee attributable to 

administration of the registration 

program, covering the period beginning 

October 1, 2010, is $475. When added 

to the costs of registration of $320, as set 

forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the 

costs per applicant to be recovered 

through the annual fee are $795. The 

annual renewal registration fee for the 

period beginning October 1, 2010, is 

$670. 

3. Amend § 594.7 by revising the first 

sentence of 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, 2010, the fee payable for 

seeking a determination under 

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

* * * 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 594.8 by revising the first 

sentence of paragraph (b) and 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 $158. * * * 

(c) If a determination has been made 

on or after October 1, 2010, pursuant to 

the Administrator’s initiative, the fee for 

each vehicle is $125. * * * 

5. Amend § 594.9 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond 

processing costs and costs for processing 

offers of cash deposits or obligations of the 

United States in lieu of sureties on bonds. 

* * * * * 

(c) The bond processing fee for each 

vehicle imported on and after October 1, 

2010, for which a certificate of 

conformity is furnished, is $9.93. 

* * * * * 

(e) The fee for each vehicle imported 

on and after October 1, 2010, for which 

cash deposits or obligations of the 

United States are furnished in lieu of a 

conformance bond, is $514.00. 

6. Amend § 594.10 by revising the 

first and third sentences of 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, 2010 is $17. 

* * * If NHTSA finds that the 

information in the entry or the 

certificate is incorrect, requiring further 

processing, the processing fee shall be 

$57. 

Issued on: May 5, 2010. 

Joseph Carra, 

Acting Senior Associate Administrator for 

Vehicle Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10816 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

Docket No [0906221082–0122–02] 

RIN 0648–XQ03 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Listing for the 

Largetooth Sawfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12–month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have determined 

that the largetooth sawfish (Pristis 

perotteti) qualifies as a ‘‘species’’ for 

listing as endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and propose listing the species as 

endangered. This proposed rule also 

constitutes the 12–month finding on the 

petition to list the largetooth sawfish 

throughout its range and designate 

critical habitat for the species. We are 

not proposing to designate critical 

habitat. This proposed rule to list the 

species as endangered is based on the 

status review of the species (NMFS, 

2010), and the best available scientific 

and commercial data. We also solicit 

information that may be relevant to the 

status and conservation of the species. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS