Update Means of Providing Recall Notification |
|---|
|
Gregory K. Rea
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1 September 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60332-60337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 577
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001]
RIN 2127-AL66
Update Means of Providing Recall Notification
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to amend the means of recall notification to
owners and purchasers required under the Safety Act to be in an
electronic manner, in addition to first class mail, in accordance with
Section 30130 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) and Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act). Through this proposed rule, NHTSA also
seeks to improve the efficacy of recalls by requiring manufacturers to
send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance with
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) if a second
notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number
of motor vehicles or replacement equipment being returned for remedy.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016. In
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on amendments to an information collection. See the Paperwork
Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below.
Please submit all comments relating to the information collection
requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before October 31,
2016. Comments to OMB are most useful if submitted within 30 days of
publication.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Facsimile: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please include the
docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at (202) 366-9322.
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 discussion below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments 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 19476 at 19477-
78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For substantive issues: Jennifer
Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, at (202) 366-4000. For legal issues: Justine
Casselle, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, at (202) 366-2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and FAST Act
III. NHTSA's Proposed Amendment To Require Notification to Owners
and Purchasers by Electronic Means in
[[Page 60333]]
Addition to Notification by First Class Mail
A. Public Response to NHTSA's ANPRM
B. Suggested Approaches for Electronic Notification
C. Limitations to Electronic Notification Approaches
D. Privacy Considerations and Impacts of Any Existing Laws
IV. Proposed Changes to Notification Requirements
V. Proposed Changes to Follow-Up Requirements
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Adjusted Estimates for Current Information Collections
B. Estimates for New Information Collections
I. Executive Summary
In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
Congress enacted a provision authorizing NHTSA to amend the means by
which a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
provides notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers that a vehicle
or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does
not comply with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS). Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). More
recently, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act) expressly provided that NHTSA amend 49 CFR part 577 to
require notification to owners and purchasers by electronic means in
addition to notification by first class mail. Public Law 114-94, 24104
(2015). MAP-21 further authorized NHTSA to improve recall effectiveness
by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects
or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not
result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being
returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012).
NHTSA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
soliciting comments and supporting information about what NHTSA might
require as to electronic notification. See 81 FR 4007 (January 25,
2016). We asked questions to facilitate comments from stakeholders on
what means of notification, based on their experience, have been most
effective in providing information to customers and motivating
customers to have safety recall remedies performed. As part of
implementing the MAP-21 and FAST Act notification provisions, and after
consideration of comments received in response to the ANPRM, we now
propose to amend Part 577 to require electronic notification means in
addition to first class mail notification to owners and purchasers.
This proposed update is not intended to change the scope of the
existing rule, other than as specifically described in this notice, but
is intended to aid in efficiently and effectively improving safety
recall completion rates.
II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and FAST Act
49 U.S.C. 30118(c) requires that, in the event of a defect or
noncompliance with an applicable FMVSS in a motor vehicle or
replacement equipment, manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and
dealers of the vehicle or equipment pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. The
manner by which this required notice is given to owners, purchasers,
and dealers of vehicles or equipment is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30119(d).
Prior to MAP-21, for vehicle recalls, section 30119(d) required notice
to be sent by first class mail to the registered owner or, if the
registered owner could not be identified, to the most recent purchaser
known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). For recalls of
replacement equipment, the statute required notification by first class
mail to the most recent purchaser. Id. Manufacturers were also required
to notify dealers under the statute ``by certified mail or quicker
means if available.'' 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(4).
Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 49 U.S.C.
30119(d) to allow the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation
NHTSA's Administrator, the flexibility to determine the manner by which
notifications about safety recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent.
The amended statutory language authorized the Agency to engage in a
rulemaking to permit notification to owners and purchasers of safety
recalls by means other than first class mail. In December 2015,
Congress enacted the FAST Act expounding on this authority by expressly
requiring the Agency to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to include notification to
owners and purchasers by electronic means in addition to notification
by first class mail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notification to dealers and distributors is generally
required to be sent ``by certified mail, verifiable or electronic
means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite
distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable
means.'' 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and distributors are not
notified by first class mail. Therefore, the FAST Act did not
require the Agency to change the means of notification for dealers
and distributors, and we are not proposing to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 31310 of MAP-21 aimed to improve the efficacy of recalls
not just through updating the means of notification, but also through
allowing the Secretary to order additional notifications when
necessary. Previously, 49 U.S.C. 30119(e) authorized the Secretary to
order a second notification if the Secretary determined that the first
notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles
or items of equipment being returned for remedy. The statute was
silent, however, as to whether additional notifications beyond a second
notification could be required. Section 31310 resolved this question by
amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49 U.S.C.
30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order additional
notifications if the Secretary determines that a second notification
also failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items
of equipment being returned for remedy.
III. NHTSA's Proposed Amendment To Require Notification to Owners and
Purchasers by Electronic Means in Addition to Notification by First
Class Mail
In the ANPRM, NHTSA invited comments and supporting information on
how the Agency can best leverage the new flexibilities given under MAP-
21 and the FAST Act to update the required means manufacturers use,
whether as a first notification or as a follow-up notification, to
successfully notify their customers and urge them toward seeking the
free remedies offered. The ANRPM posed several questions about the
variety of means and methods manufacturers use to communicate with
their customers. Additionally, the ANPRM posed several questions about
general owner knowledge and behavior, and asked commenters to present
any data on owner behavior in the recall context, including whether
owners were responsive to incentives and to the currently prescribed
content and layout of the notifications.
A. Public Response to NHTSA's ANPRM
We received 16 comments in response to the ANPRM regarding our
proposed update of Part 577. Comments were submitted by Advocates for
Highway Safety; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance);
American Automotive Leasing Association; IHS Automotive (IHS); FCA US
LLC (FCA); General Motors LLC (GM); Global Automakers (Global); NAFA
Fleet Management Association (NAFA); National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA); National Independent Automobile Dealers Association
(NIADA); Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA); Pandora Media, Inc.
(Pandora); Tire Industry Association (TIA); Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association
[[Page 60334]]
(EMA); New Jersey Gasoline, C-Store, and Automotive Association
(NJGCA); and Tesla Motors (Tesla).
Many of the comments addressed general owner knowledge and behavior
and proposed potential changes to the specific information provided to
owners and the layout of the notifications. Many also proposed that
NHTSA should conduct studies on these matters. Although the comments
were insightful, NHTSA is not proposing additional or changed
requirements as to the specific content and layout of notifications at
this time. This NPRM is limited to updating the means of notification
by requiring electronic notification.
B. Suggested Approaches for Electronic Notification
Most commenters generally supported the use of electronic means and
provided suggestions on which types would be best suited for recall
notifications. Advocates for Highway Safety stated its belief that
email and text message notification should be required, as both methods
allow for delivery receipt. It also suggested that newspaper, radio,
television, internet, and social media be required methods of
notification. Finally, it suggested that manufacturers use direct-to-
vehicle communications to notify owners.
IHS suggested that social media, digital radio broadcasts, and
connected car applications are ``future looking applications of
reaching audiences who may not respond to direct mail or even email
notices.'' IHS further commented that some manufacturers use a method
called Voice Broadcast which is a ``notice in advance of the mailing or
other communication to alert the consumer to the forthcoming first
class mail communication.''
The Alliance recommended that the Agency permit a multi-tiered
approach that allows manufacturers to use a variety of electronic
communication methods. The Alliance noted that manufacturers already
use multiple electronic communication methods such as ``robo-calls,
agent-assisted calls, Facebook notifications, and other means,''
especially when recall completion rates are low.
Similar to the Alliance's comments, GM suggested that any changes
to Part 577 be flexible, allowing for new technologies as they arise,
and further commented that the demographics of the vehicle and the
particular recall issue must be better understood as they each play a
key role in recall completion rates. GM noted that it has used robo-
calls, live calls, in-vehicle calls, and social media to reach out to
its owners. The company found social media effective for the purpose of
raising awareness, but could not tie it to significant gains in recall
completion.
Tesla provided a contextual example of successful electronic
notifications used in a recent recall. As Tesla has every Tesla
customer's email address, email notifications were sent to every
customer two weeks before the physical mailings were ready to be
mailed. Thirty percent of Tesla customers had their vehicle remedied by
the time the physical mailings were sent via first class mail. Tesla
agrees that electronic notification is instantaneous but, though very
effective, should be supplemental to the current first class mail
standard.
NAFA agreed that electronic notification should be added to the
existing first class mail notification.
NIADA suggested that NHTSA move away from a ``one-sized fits all
approach,'' and allow notification means such as email, text messaging,
internet, OnStar, Blue Link, and other technologies. NIADA commented
broadly that it supports strategies that expand how owners are reminded
of recalls.
Pandora noted that it worked with GM in the past to notify targeted
owners with audio notifications about open recalls. Pandora further
shared that its notifications are interactive and can connect a user
directly to scheduling or to a manufacturer's Web site.
EMA shared that many fleets and dealers already use a variety of
electronic means to connect with owners, such as email, telephone, text
messages, direct service database flags, and more.
TIA and NJGCA provided no data as to the effectiveness of first
class mail notifications, but opined that ``change-of-address'' impacts
notifications. TIA further commented that tire manufacturers ``could
use the Internet and social media to notify owners about safety recalls
. . .'' but tire manufacturers currently only provide first class mail
notifications and sometimes a press release.
C. Limitations to Electronic Notification Approaches
Not all commenters supported the use of electronic means during the
recall notification process and some commenters highlighted some
concerns or limitations with various methods of electronic
communications.
Survey results provided by the Alliance and Global included
information about the success of various means of notification. Per the
results, neither was able to correlate recall completion rates with a
specific outreach method. The Alliance and Global noted that there is
no ability to connect social media outreach to particular VINs and no
guarantee that owners will not treat emails from manufacturers as SPAM
or JUNK, even with a valid delivery receipt.
GM also recognized some concerns such as the difficulty of
obtaining owner email addresses without paying a third-party and social
media privacy policies. GM did not recommend that email notification
replace first class mail notification, and noted that delivery rates
through first class mail can be as high as 96%.
The American Automotive Leasing Association stated its position
that a change to Part 577 should not burden lessors with requirements
to send any additional notifications, email or otherwise, to vehicle
lessees.
EMA commented that existing first class mail notification is very
effective for commercial vehicle recalls because the owner records are
typically better kept amongst the commercial vehicle market.
Additionally, EMA does not believe social media notifications will be
useful for the commercial vehicle market.
D. Privacy Considerations and Impacts of Any Existing Laws
Three (3) commenters, the Alliance, GM, and TIA, commented on
specific privacy concerns or existing state and Federal laws that might
be impacted by the use of electronic recall communications.
GM noted that the expertise to market via electronic communications
is often housed in the manufacturer's marketing department. While a
specific legal restriction was not cited, GM did suggest that owner
data from state registrations would need housing in a ``safe haven''
where the manufacturer could only use that data within legal
constraints. GM further mentioned that some social media privacy
policies restrict the amount of feedback the vehicle manufacturer can
obtain and some publishers do not offer any feedback at all. As such,
it would be difficult to measure the effectiveness of some social media
recall notifications.
The Alliance commented that some forms of social media, like
Twitter, restrict the amount of content shared to users. For example, a
recall communication containing a summary of the recall, safety risk,
available remedy, and contact information would be difficult to
transmit given Twitter's 140 character limit restriction. Also, the
Alliance recommended an additional study needed to ensure new means of
notification do not conflict with the Controlling the Assault of Non-
Solicited
[[Page 60335]]
Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act), the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act as
amended.
TIA cautioned the Agency in requiring additional personal
information to be provided back to the tire manufacturers in order to
facilitate electronic recall notifications. TIA noted that 49 CFR part
574 prohibits manufacturers from using registration information for
marketing purposes; however, TIA claims tire manufacturers have
circumvented this prohibition and TIA worries any additional data that
tire retailers must collect (such as customer email addresses) may
create a competitive disadvantage to independent tire retailers.
IV. Proposed Changes to Notification Requirements
After considering the relevant comments provided, we propose to
amend 49 CFR 577.7 to require notification by electronic means in
addition to first class mail every time a recall notification is
required. The proposal gives the recalling manufacturer the flexibility
to define and determine the electronic means they feel are most
effective to employ in an effort to optimize the recalls completion for
a particular recall campaign. As many of the commenters noted, there
are a wide variety of electronic means currently available for use by
manufacturers and some have chosen to use as a supplementary means of
notification with varying degrees of success. A flexible approach
values the knowledge and experience of the recalling manufacturers
concerning what means are most likely to reach and resonate with their
owners and motivate them toward taking steps to have their products
remedied.
Accordingly, we propose defining ``electronic means'' to include
``electronic mail, text messages, radio or television notifications,
vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, social
media or targeted online campaigns, phone calls, including automated
phone calls, or other real time means.'' As with any recall
communication, the Agency retains the discretion to require other means
and additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is
impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners
impacted, or the Agency otherwise deems inappropriate. At this time we
decline to set any additional and mandatory notification means beyond
the electronic means identified here.
The Agency recognizes that the proposed definition of ``electronic
means'' is broad and that certain proposed means of electronic
notification may be difficult to achieve in practice given the current
content requirements of 49 CFR part 577. We propose a broad definition
of ``electronic means'' now in anticipation that we may amend the
content requirements of 49 CFR part 577 in the future. However, at this
time, we propose to require that any electronic notification issued
under this paragraph comply with the content requirements of 49 CFR
part 577, or provide a hyperlink to a notice that complies with the
content requirements of 49 CFR part 577, or a representative copy of
such a notice along with instructions on how a vehicle owner can
determine whether his or her vehicle is impacted.
Vehicle safety recalls require inclusion of the owner's VIN in the
part 577 notification letter. We recognize that is not always feasible
through social media or other electronic means where a notice may be
viewed by more than one individual. In that case, a representative copy
of a notice may be used, so long as additional information is given as
to how an owner could readily determine whether his or her vehicle or
equipment is impacted by the recall. For those manufacturers that are
currently required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-
based safety recall search tools on their Web sites pursuant to
existing regulation, the communication must also direct viewers to
NHTSA's VIN search tool \1\ and the manufacturer's search tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA's VIN search tool is available at https://vinrcl.safercar.gov/vin/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be noted that this proposed rule does not alter a
manufacturer's requirements under 49 CFR part 573, nor is an amendment
to 49 CFR part 573 required at this time. Manufacturers must continue
to comply with 49 CFR 573.6 by filing representative copies of ``all
notices, bulletins, and other communications that relate directly to
the defect or noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer,
distributor, dealer or purchaser.'' Electronic notifications are
notices, bulletins, or other communications under 49 CFR 573.6.
Currently, manufacturers provide representative copies to NHTSA via the
online Recalls Portal. Upon the publishing of the Final Rule,
manufacturers will continue to do so, as the online Recalls Portal will
be updated to allow for manufacturers to select their choice among one
of the allowable electronic means. Representative copies are required
even if a manufacturer chooses to issue Part 577-compliant notices via
electronic means such as radio or television notifications, vehicle
infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, telephone calls, or
other allowable means. In practice, manufacturers can submit to the
online Recalls Portal copies of electronic messages (emails),
screenshots of messages or alerts, and scripts of calls or ads, for
example.
We also note that 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2) concerning notifications to
dealers and distributers already contains language providing for
notification ``by certified mail, verifiable electronic means such as
receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution system,
or other more expeditious and verifiable means. . . .'' At this time,
the Agency does not believe a change to the required means of
notification to dealers and distributers is warranted.
In response to concerns expressed about whether the proposed
electronic notification requirement will conflict with existing federal
laws aimed at protecting consumers and businesses from unwanted
electronic messages, the Agency's position is that it will not. Recall
notifications are safety-related informational messages. The proposed
changes in this rulemaking are not intended to exempt from federal
laws, including but not limited to the CAN-SPAM Act, the TCPA, and the
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, conduct that is unlawful under those
laws.
We request comments on this proposal and any alternative approaches
that allow for numerous electronic notification means, but at the same
time ensure that the notification communicates the long-standing and
essential components of traditional Part 577 first class mailings. That
is, that the manufacturer had decided there is a safety defect or
failure to meet minimum safety standards; that the safety defect or
failure to comply increases the risk of a motor vehicle crash, injury
and/or fire; a safety recall is being conducted; and a remedy will be
provided at no cost. More specifically, we request comment on our
proposed approach to permit discretion in the means chosen to meet the
requirement of electronic notification. In addition to our request for
comments on our proposed definition of ``electronic means,'' we request
comment on whether the terms ``social media or targeted online
campaigns'' need further definition, given that such proposed
electronic notification means are fundamentally different from other
means targeted at individual owners. Finally, we request comment on our
proposal to require inclusion of directions to NHTSA's VIN search tool
and the manufacturer's search tool, for
[[Page 60336]]
social media campaigns, for example, which we believe will allow owners
to readily ascertain the application of the safety recall to vehicles
and equipment they own.
V. Proposed Changes to Follow-Up Requirements
As mentioned above, MAP-21 authorized NHTSA to require
manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or
noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not
result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being
returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, Sec. 31310, 126 Stat. 758
(2012). Although 49 CFR 577.10 currently provides that the
Administrator ``may authorize the use of other media besides first-
class mail for a follow-up notification,'' we propose a minor revision
to this section for clarity and consistency purposes. Still subject to
the Administrator's approval, we propose clarifying that a follow-up
notification shall be sent by first class mail and by electronic means
in the same manners we propose be included in 49 CFR 577.7 above. We
request comment on this proposed clarification.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866 or Executive Order 13563. NHTSA has considered the impact of this
NPRM under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This action would amend Part 577 to update the procedures
by which manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of
defects and noncompliances in an effort to improve vehicle safety
recall completion rates. The rulemaking imposes no new significant
burdens on the manufacturers and does not create significant related
costs that would require the development of a full cost/benefit
evaluation. Since this action also does not change the number of those
organizations or individuals subject to this requirement, the impacts
of the rule are limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined
to be not ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of
Management and Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also considered the impact of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following provides the factual basis for this
certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments almost entirely
affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS''), Subsector 336--Transportation
Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard
of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses.
Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements
that range between 100 and 750 employees. For example, according to the
SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel
trailers/campers, and vehicular lighting equipment, qualify as small
businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Small businesses are
subject to the notification requirements and therefore may be affected
by the proposed changes in this NPRM. However, the impacts of this
rulemaking on small businesses are minimal, as this proposed procedural
update does not impose a significant additional burden or additional
costs.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, 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. Because this rulemaking would not have a $100
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. In compliance with
the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking comment on a revision of a
currently approved collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three (3) years from the
date of approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information
This approved information collection is associated with 49 CFR Part
573 and portions of 49 CFR part 577, and consists of important safety
recall information that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers must submit.
Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the Information
The information is needed for NHTSA to better serve the public by
effectively monitoring safety recalls and by providing timely recall
information to consumers regarding specific vehicles. Owners and
purchasers will benefit from the increased ease with which they can
ascertain information on recalled vehicles. The public at large will
benefit from a decrease in the numbers of defect or noncompliant
vehicles on public roads and, concurrently, a decrease in the incident
or risk of incident of injuries and fatalities associated with those
defects and failures to comply, that we expect to result from increased
recalls completion rates stemming from the public's enhanced ability to
quickly locate important safety recall information on vehicles they
drive.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)
Should this proposal be made final, we expect that all
manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and currently subject to the defect
and noncompliance reporting and notification requirements will continue
to be subject to the updated requirements.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information
Today's proposed rule requiring manufacturers to notify their
affected owners by electronic means in addition to first class mail
notifications will add some paperwork burden to the industry. However,
electronic methods such as email, social media accounts, over-the-air
communications and others are existing technologies and largely free of
charge.
Given the recent increase in the number of safety recalls the
Agency administers yearly and the volume of products included in those
recalls, this information collection burden hour total is increased
from previous estimates. The Agency anticipates that each recall
[[Page 60337]]
will require 4 burden hours for the manufacturer to plan its strategy
for meeting the electronic notification requirement and executing that
strategy. With an estimated 854 recalls filed each year, we estimate a
new 3,416 burden hours (854 recalls x 4 hours) for this new
requirement.
Comments are invited on:
Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have practical utility.
Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the
information collection is accurate.
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are
due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
The Agency recognizes that the collection of information contained
in today's proposed rule may be subject to revision in response to
public comments.
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
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).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Regulatory Text
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend
49 CFR part 577 as follows:
PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
0
2. Amend Sec. 577.7 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and
adding paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and (vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 577.7 Time and manner of notification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor
vehicle manufacturer, by first class mail and by electronic means to
each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the
vehicle and whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the
manufacturer through State records or other sources available to him.
If the owner cannot be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall
notify the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. The
manufacturer shall also provide notification to each lessee of a leased
motor vehicle that is covered by an agreement between the manufacturer
and a lessor under which the manufacturer is to notify lessees directly
of safety-related defects and noncompliances.
(ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a
replacement equipment manufacturer--
(A) By first class mail and by electronic means to the most recent
purchaser known to the manufacturer, and
(B) (Except in the case of a tire) if decided by the Administrator
to be required for motor vehicle safety, by public notice in such
manner as the Administrator may require after consultation with the
manufacturer.
(iii) In the case of a manufacturer required to provide
notification concerning any defective or noncomplying tire, by first
class or certified mail and by electronic means.
(iv) In the case of a notification to be sent by a lessor to a
lessee of a leased motor vehicle, by first class mail and by electronic
means to the most recent lessee known to the lessor. Such notification
shall be sent within ten days of the lessor's receipt of the
notification from the vehicle manufacturer.
(v) Notification by electronic means required by paragraph (a)(2)
of this section is defined to include notification by electronic mail,
text messages, radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment
console messages, over-the-air alerts, social media or targeted online
campaigns, telephone calls, automated or otherwise, or other real time
means. No matter the means identified by the manufacturer, the
Administrator retains the discretion to require other means and
additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is
impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners
impacted, or is otherwise deemed inappropriate. Any electronic
notification issued under this paragraph must either comply with the
content requirements of Sec. 577.5(b) through (g) of this part,
provide an internet hyperlink to a notice that complies with the
content requirements of Sec. 577.5(b) through (g), or provide an
internet hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that complies
with the content requirements of Sec. 577.5(b) through (g) along with
instructions on how the purchaser or owner can determine whether his or
her vehicle or equipment is impacted.
(vi) In the case of a notification by electronic means that may be
viewed by more than one individual, manufacturers who are currently
required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety
recall search tools pursuant to existing regulation under this chapter,
such notification must direct viewer to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the
manufacturer's search tool.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 577.10 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 577.10 Follow-up notification.
* * * * *
(g) A follow-up notification shall be sent by first class mail and
by electronic means pursuant to Sec. 577.7(a)(2) of this part.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Administrator may
authorize the use of other media besides first class mail and
electronic means for a follow-up notification.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2016 under authority
delegated pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-20926 Filed 8-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P