Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45195 

Contracts, to revise 503.702 to delete the 

definition for ‘‘Notice’’ and ‘‘Voiding 

and rescinding official’’ as the terms do 

not require definition; to add a new 

section 503.703, Authority, to identify 

the Senior Procurement Executive as 

having the authority to void and rescind 

contracts pursuant to FAR 3.703 and 

3.705(b); to relocate 503.705 from the 

GSAR to the manual part of the GSAM 

because it relates to internal 

administrative procedures; to add a new 

Subpart 503.10, Contractor Code of 

Business Ethics and Conduct, to 

establish a lower threshold for the 

inclusion of FAR 52.203–14, Display of 

Hotline Poster(s), at 503.1004(a) and 

include the name of the poster and 

where the poster may be obtained at 

503.1004(b)(i) and (ii) pursuant to FAR 

52.203.14(b)(3); to delete GSAR 

552.203–5, Covenant Against 

Contingent Fees, to ensure consistency 

with the GSAM that provides that the 

acquisition of leasehold interests in real 

property is established by GSAM Part 

570; and to delete GSAR 552.203, Price 

Adjustment for Illegal or Improper 

Activity, to ensure consistency with the 

GSAM requirements that leasehold 

interests in real property is established 

by GSAM Part 570. 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, was not subject to 

review under Section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The General Services Administration 

does not expect this proposed rule to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

because the revisions are not considered 

substantive. The revisions only update 

the GSAR and reorganize existing 

coverage. An Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not 

been performed. We invite comments 

from small businesses and other 

interested parties. GSA will consider 

comments from small entities 

concerning the affected GSAR Parts 503 

and 552 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR case 2008–

G502), in correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the proposed changes 

to the GSAM do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 503 and 

552 

Government procurement. 

Dated: July 28, 2008 

Al Matera, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 

CFR parts 503 and 552 as set forth 

below: 

PART 503—IMPROPER BUSINESS 

PRACTICES AND PERSONAL 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 503 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c). 

503.104–3 and 503–104–9 [Removed] 

2. Remove sections 503.104–3 and 

503.104–9. 

3. Amend section 503.204 by—

a. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) ‘‘or 

joint venture’’; 

b. Removing from paragraph (c) 

‘‘designated by the Chairman of the GSA 

Board of Contract Appeals.’’ and adding 

a period, in its place; and 

c. Revising paragraph (f). 

The revised text reads as follows: 

503.204 Treatment of violations. 

* * * * * 

(f) If the Gratuities clause was 

violated, the contractor may present 

evidence of mitigating factors to the 

Senior Procurement Executive, or 

designee, in accordance with FAR 

3.204(b), either orally or in writing, 

consistent with a schedule the Senior 

Procurement Executive, or designee, 

establishes. The Senior Procurement 

Executive, or designee, exercises the 

Government’s rights under FAR 3.204(c) 

only after considering mitigating factors. 

503.404 [Removed] 

4. Remove section 503.404. 

503.570–1 [Amended] 

5. Amend section 503.570–1 by 

removing ‘‘referring’’ and adding 

‘‘making references’’ in its place. 

503.702 [Removed] 

6. Remove section 503.702. 

503.703 [Added] 

7. Add section 503.703 to read as 

follows: 

503.703 Authority. 

Pursuant to FAR 3.703 and 3.705(b), 

the authority to void or rescind 

contracts resides with the Senior 

Procurement Executive. 

8. Add Subpart 503.10 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 503.10—Contractor Code of 

Business Ethics and Conduct 

503.1004 Contract clauses. 

(a) The FAR threshold for the clause 

at 52.203–14, Display of Hotline 

Poster(s), is $5,000,000. However, GSA 

has exercised the authority provided at 

FAR 3.1004(b)(1)(i) to establish a lower 

threshold, $1,000,000, for inclusion of 

the clause when the contract or order is 

funded with disaster assistance funds. 

(b) The information required to be 

inserted in the clause at FAR 52.203–14, 

Display of Hotline Poster(s), is as 

follows: 

(i) Poster: GSA OIG ‘‘FRAUDNET 

HOTLINE’’; and 

(ii) Obtain from: Contracting Officer. 

PART 552—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

9. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 552 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c). 

552.203–5 and 552.203–70 [Removed] 

10. Remove sections 552.203–5 and 

552.203–70. 

[FR Doc. E8–17790 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 594 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2008–0114; Notice 1] 

RIN 2127–AK33 

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 2009 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 not 

later than September 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket and notice numbers above 

and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
45196 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 Michael 

Goode, 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, 2008, the 

beginning of FY 2009. 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 2006. See final rule 

published on August 3, 2006 at 71 FR 

43985. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 

2007 and 2008. 

The proposed fees are based on time 

and costs associated with the tasks for 

which the fees are assessed and reflect 

the slight increase in hourly costs in the 

past two fiscal years attributable to the 

approximately 2.64 and 4.49 percent 

raises (including the locality adjustment 

for Washington, DC) in salaries of 

employees on the General Schedule that 

became effective on January 1, 2007, 

and on January 1, 2008, respectively. 

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 $266 to $295 for new 

applications. We have also tentatively 

determined that the fee for the review of 

the annual statement should be 

increased from $159 to $186. 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 $465 for each RI, an 

increase of $54. When this $465 is 

added to the $295 representing the 

registration application component, the 

cost to an applicant for RI status comes 

to $760, which is the fee we propose. 

This represents an increase of $83 over 

the existing fee. When the $465 is added 

to the $186 representing the annual 

statement component, the total cost to 

an RI for renewing its registration comes 

to $651, which represents an increase of 

$81. 

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 

$17.07 per man-hour. We are proposing 

to increase this figure by $3.24, to 

$20.31. 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 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45197 

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. We have reduced 

costs by issuing a single Federal 

Register notice to announce import 

eligibility decisions made on multiple 

vehicles. Despite the cost savings that 

have accrued from this effort, RIs have 

imported fewer vehicles each year since 

we last amended the fee schedule. This 

has increased the pro-rata share of 

petition costs that are to be assessed 

against the importer of each vehicle 

covered by the decision to grant import 

eligibility. Although the number of 

petitions submitted in the past two 

years has decreased, the agency has 

devoted an increasing share of staff time 

to the review and processing of import 

eligibility petitions owing to 

complications that result when the 

petitioner or one or more commenters 

request confidentiality for information 

they submit to the agency. Additional 

staff time is also needed to analyze the 

petitions and any comments received 

owing to new requirements being 

adopted in the FMVSS, such as the 

advanced air bag rule that became 

effective September 1, 2006. Despite 

these factors, we are proposing no 

increase in the current fee of $175 that 

covers the initial processing of a 

‘‘substantially similar’’ petition. Instead, 

as discussed below, we are proposing to 

address these additional costs by 

increasing the pro-rata share of petition 

costs that are assessed against the 

importer of each vehicle covered by the 

decision to grant import eligibility. 

Likewise, we are also 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. 

Importers of vehicles determined to 

be eligible for importation pay, upon the 

importation of those vehicles, a pro-rata 

share of the total cost for making the 

eligibility decision. The importation fee 

varies depending upon the basis on 

which the vehicle is determined to be 

eligible. For vehicles covered by an 

eligibility decision on the agency’s own 

initiative (other than vehicles imported 

from Canada that are covered by import 

eligibility numbers VSA–80 through 83, 

for which no eligibility decision fee is 

assessed), the fee would 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, 2008. We apply the fee of 

$125 per vehicle only to vehicles 

covered by determinations made by the 

agency on its own initiative on or after 

October 1, 2008. 

The agency’s costs for making an 

import eligibility decision pursuant to a 

petition are borne in part by the 

petitioner and in part by the importers 

of vehicles imported under the petition. 

In 2007, the most recent year for which 

complete data exists, the agency 

expended $76,031 in making import 

eligibility decisions based on petitions. 

The petitioners paid $6,975 of that 

amount in the processing fees that 

accompanied the filing of their 

petitions, leaving the remaining $69,056 

to be recovered from the importers of 

the 236 vehicles imported that year 

under petition-based import eligibility 

decisions. Dividing $69,056 by 236 

yields a pro-rata fee of $293 for each 

vehicle imported under an eligibility 

decision that resulted from the granting 

of a petition. 

However, the agency believes that the 

volume of petition-based imports for the 

next two fiscal years should not be 

projected on the basis of a single year, 

particularly one in which the volume of 

petition-based imports was atypically 

low. The agency therefore took the 

average number of petition-based 

imports over the past 15 years to project 

the number of such vehicles that would 

be imported in Fiscal Years 2009 and 

2010. Further, we assume that petitions 

filed during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 

would also more closely reflect the 

average number of petitions received 

each year since 1991, the first year that 

the agency received RI petitions. Based 

on these estimates, we project that 621 

vehicles would be imported under 

petition-based eligibility decisions and 

that 39 petition-based import eligibility 

decisions would be made. 

Based on these estimates, the agency’s 

costs for processing these petitions 

would increase to no more than 

$136,000. Petitioners would pay slightly 

more than $13,000 of that amount in the 

processing fees that accompany the 

filing of their petitions, leaving the 

remaining $123,000 to be recovered 

from the importers of the 621 vehicles 

to be imported each year under petitionbased import eligibility decisions. 

Dividing $123,000 by 621 yields a prorata fee of $198 for each vehicle 

imported under an eligibility decision 

that results from the granting of a 

petition. 

Based on our estimates for Fiscal 

Years 2009 and 2010, the pro-rata fee to 

be paid by the importer of each such 

vehicle would decrease from $208 to 

$198, representing a decrease of $10 

from the existing fee for each vehicle 

imported. The same $198 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. 

Section 594.9—Fee To Recover the Costs 

of Processing the Bond 

Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a 

registered importer to pay any other fees 

the Secretary of Transportation 

establishes ‘‘* * * to pay for the costs 

of—(A) processing bonds provided to 

the Secretary of the Treasury * * *’’

upon the importation of a 

nonconforming vehicle to ensure that 

the vehicle 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) now 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, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
45198 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

which Customs has judged to be 20 

minutes. 

Based on General Schedule salary and 

locality raises that were effective in 

January 2007 and 2008 and the 

inclusion of costs for benefits, we are 

proposing that the processing fee be 

increased by $.46, from $9.77 per bond 

to $10.23. This fee would reflect the 

direct and indirect costs that are 

actually associated with processing the 

bonds. 

Section 594.10—Fee for Review and 

Processing of Conformity Certificate 

Each RI is currently required to pay 

$13 per vehicle to cover the costs the 

agency incurs in reviewing a certificate 

of conformity. We estimate that these 

costs would increase to an average of 

$14.00 per vehicle because of 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 $13 to $14, a difference of 

$1 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 $6.00. 

We propose to maintain the fee of $6.00 

per vehicle if all the information in the 

ABI entry is correct. 

Errors in ABI entries not only 

eliminate any 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 $42 for each 

erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the 

$6 fee for the review of conformity 

packages on automated entries yields a 

total of $48, representing no change 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, 2008. 

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. 

Based on the level of the fees and the 

volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA 

currently anticipates that the costs of 

the final rule would be so minimal as 

not to warrant preparation of a full 

regulatory evaluation. The action does 

not involve any substantial public 

interest or controversy. There would be 

no substantial effect upon State and 

local governments. There would be no 

substantial impact upon a major 

transportation safety program. A 

regulatory evaluation analyzing the 

economic impact of the final rule 

establishing the registered importer 

program, adopted on September 29, 

1989, was prepared, and is available for 

review in the docket. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBFEFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

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

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions). 

The Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

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

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The agency has considered the effects 

of this 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 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45199 

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. 

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. This proposal would require no 

information collections. 

I. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 applies to any 

rule that (1) is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

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

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned rule is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rulemaking is not economically 

significant 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. 

After conducting a search of available 

sources, we have concluded that there 

are no voluntary consensus standards 

applicable to this proposed rule. 

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. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
45200 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

594 as follows: 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles. 

PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES 

AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141 

1. The authority citation for part 594 

continues to read as follows: 

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

9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 594.6 is amended by; 

A. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a); 

B. Revising paragraph (b); 

C. Revising paragraph (d); 

D. Revising the final sentence of 

paragraph (h); and 

E. Revising paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 594.6 Annual fee for administration of 

the registration program. 

(a) Each person filing an application 

to be granted the status of a Registered 

Importer pursuant to part 592 of this 

chapter on or after October 1, 2008, 

must pay an annual fee of $760, 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, 2008, is $295. The sum 

of $295, 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, 2008, is set forth in 

paragraph (i) of this section. This 

portion shall be refundable if the 

application is denied, or withdrawn 

before final action upon it. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * This cost is $23.31 per manhour for the period beginning October 1, 

2008. 

(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, 2008, is $465. When added 

to the costs of registration of $295, as set 

forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the 

costs per applicant to be recovered 

through the annual fee are $760. The 

annual renewal registration fee for the 

period beginning October 1, 2008, is 

$651. 

3. Section 594.7 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 594.7 Fee for filing petitions for a 

determination whether a vehicle is eligible 

for importation. 

* * * * * 

(e) For petitions filed on and after 

October 1, 2008, the fee payable for 

seeking a determination under 

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

The fee payable for a petition seeking a 

determination under paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section is $800. If the petitioner 

requests an inspection of a vehicle, the 

sum of $827 shall be added to such fee. 

No portion of this fee is refundable if 

the petition is withdrawn or denied. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 594.8 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and the first 

sentence of paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45201 

§ 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 $198. The direct and indirect 

costs that determine the fee are those set 

forth in §§ 594.7(b), (c), and (d). 

(c) If a determination has been made 

on or after October 1, 2008, pursuant to 

the Administrator’s initiative, the fee for 

each vehicle is $125. * * * 

5. Section 594.9 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond 

processing costs. 

* * * * * 

(c) The bond processing fee for each 

vehicle imported on and after October 1, 

2008, for which a certificate of 

conformity is furnished, is $10.23. 

5. Section 594.10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 594.10 Fee for review and processing of 

conformity certificate. 

* * * * * 

(d) The review and processing fee for 

each certificate of conformity submitted 

on and after October 1, 2008 is $14. 

However, if the vehicle covered by the 

certificate has been entered 

electronically with the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security through the 

Automated Broker Interface and the 

registered importer submitting the 

certificate has an e-mail address, the fee 

for the certificate is $6, provided that 

the fee is paid by a credit card issued 

to the registered importer. If NHTSA 

finds that the information in the entry 

or the certificate is incorrect, requiring 

further processing, the processing fee 

shall be $48. 

Issued on: July 25, 2008. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. E8–17516 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 071203794–8828–01] 

RIN 0648–AW36 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence 

Fishing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations 

that amend the subsistence fishery rules 

for members of an Alaska Native tribe 

eligible to harvest Pacific halibut in 

waters in and off Alaska for customary 

and traditional use. The proposed 

change would correct the location listed 

in the regulations for the Village of 

Kanatak tribe and the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) 

halibut regulatory area (Area) in which 

members may subsistence fish. These 

regulations correctly define the 

headquarters and Area for the Village of 

Kanatak tribe. The action would change 

the tribe’s headquarters from Egegik to 

Wasilla and the corresponding Area 

from 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the 

correction is to remove restrictions on 

participation of tribal members in 

traditional subsistence fisheries for 

Pacific halibut by aligning the tribe’s 

headquarters with its actual location in 

Wasilla. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than September 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 0648–

AW36’’ by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: (907) 586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will be posted to 

http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments must be in Microsoft Word, 

Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable 

document file (pdf) formats to be 

accepted. 

Copies of the Categorical Exclusion 

(CE) and Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR) prepared for this action may be 

obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, 

P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, 

Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; 

in person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709 

West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, 

Alaska; and via the Internet at the 

NMFS Alaska Region website at http:// 

www.noaa.fakr.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Murphy, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Need for Action 

The United States and Canada 

participate in the International Pacific 

Halibut Commission (IPHC) and 

promulgate regulations governing the 

Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

stenolepis) fishery under the authority 

of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 

1982 (Halibut Act). Regulations 

governing the allocation and catch of 

halibut in U.S. convention waters that 

are in agreement with the Halibut Act 

may be developed by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council). 

Regulations recommended by the 

Council must be approved by the 

Secretary of Commerce before being 

implemented through the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The 

Council prepared an environmental 

assessment/regulatory impact review 

(EA/RIR) for subsistence halibut 

fisheries, in January 2003, and NMFS 

published the final rule to implement 

subsistence halibut regulations in April 

2003 (68 FR 18145). The Alaska Native 

tribe, Village of Kanatak is recognized in 

the regulations as an organized tribal 

entity with its tribal headquarters 

located in Egegik, Alaska within halibut 

regulatory area 3A. However, the tribe’s 

headquarters are actually located in 

Wasilla, Alaska in halibut regulatory 

area 4E. The initial assignment of the 

tribal headquarters location to Egegik 

was incorrect. 

The lists of rural communities and 

native tribes recommended by the 

Council and approved by the Secretary 

for subsistence fishing eligibility were 

derived from positive customary and 

traditional findings for halibut and 

bottomfish made by the Alaska State 

Board of Fisheries (BOF) prior to the 

Alaska Supreme Court decision, 

McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 

1989). The Council retains exclusive 

authority to recommend changes to the 

list of communities § 300.65(g)(1) and 

Alaska Native tribes § 300.65(g)(2) with 

customary and traditional uses of 

Pacific halibut. Residents and tribal 

members who believe that their rural or 

tribal place was incorrectly left out of 

the subsistence eligibility listing for 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS