Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification

Jeffrey Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
30 August 2019

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45828-45834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18820]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2016-0065]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for
Comment; Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collections and their expected burden. The Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was published on June 12,
2019.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to OMB on or before September 30,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel
(NCC-0100), Room W41-229, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone: 202.366.2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation, see 5 CFR
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the

[[Page 45829]]

validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
Title: Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification.
Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
Affected Public: Businesses or individuals.
Abstract: The 60-day notice for this information collection
received two (2) comments. One of those comments appears to have been
placed on the incorrect docket. The other comment received was
submitted by The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). The
Alliance offered comments on the scope of, and burdens associated with,
the collection as it relates to the Takata Coordinated Remedy Program.
A summary of these comments is below with the corresponding burden
estimates, along with the agency's response.
This collection covers the information collection requirements
found within various statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., that address and require
manufacturer notifications to NHTSA of safety-related defects and
failures to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, as well as the provision
of particular information related to the ensuing owner and dealer
notifications and free remedy campaigns that follow those
notifications. The sections of the Act imposing these requirements
include 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30119, 30120, and 30166. Many of these
requirements are implemented through, and addressed with more
specificity in, 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports (part 573) and 49 CFR 577, Defect and
Noncompliance Notification (part 577).
Pursuant to the Act, motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers are obligated to notify, and then provide various
information and documents to, NHTSA in the event a safety defect or
noncompliance with FMVSS is identified in products they manufactured.
See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and 49 CFR 573.6. Manufacturers are further
required to notify owners, purchasers, dealers, and distributors about
the safety defect or noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), 30120(a);
49 CFR 577.7, 577.13. Manufacturers are required to provide to NHTSA
copies of communications pertaining to recall campaigns that they issue
to owners, purchasers, dealers, and distributors. See 49 U.S.C.
30166(f); 49 CFR 573.6(c)(10).
Manufacturers are also required to file with NHTSA a plan
explaining how they intend to reimburse owners and purchasers who paid
to have their products remedied before being notified of the safety
defect or noncompliance, and explain that plan in the notifications
they issue to owners and purchasers about the safety defect or
noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.13. Manufacturers
are further required to keep lists of the respective owners,
purchasers, dealers, distributors, lessors, and lessees of the products
determined to be defective or noncompliant and involved in a recall
campaign, and are required to provide NHTSA with a minimum of six
quarterly reports reporting on the progress of their recall campaigns.
See 49 CFR 573.8 and 573.7, respectively.
The Act and Part 573 also contain numerous information collection
requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns. These
requirements relate to the proper disposal of recalled tires, including
a requirement that the manufacturer conducting the tire recall submit a
plan and provide specific instructions to certain persons (such as
dealers and distributors) addressing that disposal, and a requirement
that those persons report back to the manufacturer certain deviations
from the plan. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9). The
regulations also require that manufacturers report to NHTSA intentional
and knowing sales or leases of defective or noncompliant tires.
49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation found at 49 CFR
573.10 mandate that anyone who knowingly and willfully sells or leases
for use on a motor vehicle a defective tire or a tire that is not
compliant with FMVSS, and with actual knowledge that the tire
manufacturer has notified its dealers of the defect or noncompliance as
required under the Act, is required to report that sale or lease to
NHTSA no more than five working days after the person to whom the tire
was sold or leased takes possession of it.
Pursuant to its safety authorities, NHTSA is continuing its
oversight of recalls of unprecedented complexity involving Takata air
bag inflators.\1\ Under the Coordinated Remedy Program established to
address this major issue, and the associated Coordinated Remedy Order
as amended on December 9, 2016 (the ``ACRO''), manufacturers issue
supplemental owner communications utilizing non-traditional means.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See generally ``Takata Recall Spotlight,'' https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/takata-recall-spotlight.
\2\ See generally ``Notice of Coordinated Remedy Program
Proceeding for the Replacement of Certain Takata Air Bag Inflator,''
available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2015-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Burden: NHTSA previously estimated an annual burden of
36,070 hours associated with this collection (of which 456 hours was
contemplated for conducting supplemental recall communications under
administrative order to achieve completion of the Takata recalls),
$155,450,329 (of which $27,836,329 is contemplated for conducting
supplemental recall communications under administrative order to
achieve completion of the Takata recalls), and 274 respondents per year
(19 vehicle manufacturers conducting supplemental recall communications
under administrative order to achieve completion of the Takata
recalls).\3\ Our prior estimates of the burden hours and cost
associated with the requirements currently covered by this information
collection require adjustment as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See 82 FR 60789, 60790 (December 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on current information, we estimate 249 distinct
manufacturers filing an average of 988 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports
each year. This is a change from our previous estimate of 963 Part 573
Safety Recall Reports filed by 274 manufacturers each year. In
addition, with reference to the metric associated with NHTSA's Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) Look-up Tool regulation, see 49 CFR 573.15,
we continue to estimate it takes the 17 major passenger-vehicle
manufacturers (those that produce more than 25,000 vehicles annually)
additional burden hours to complete these Reports to NHTSA, as explored
in more detail below. See 82 FR 60789 (December 22, 2017). Between 2015
and 2018, the major passenger-vehicle manufacturers conducted an
average of 316 recalls annually.
We continue to estimate that maintenance of the required owner,
purchaser, dealer, and distributors lists requires 8 hours a year per
manufacturer. We also continue to

[[Page 45830]]

estimate it takes a major passenger-vehicle manufacturer 40 hours to
complete each notification report to NHTSA, and it takes all other
manufacturers 4 hours. Accordingly, we estimate the annual burden hours
related to the reporting to NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance
for the 17 major passenger vehicle-manufacturers to be 12,640 hours
annually (316 notices x 40 hours/report), and that all other
manufacturers require a total of 2,688 hours annually (672 notices x 4
hours/report) to file their notices. Thus, the estimated annual burden
hours related to the reporting to NHTSA of a safety defect or
noncompliance is 17,320 hours (12,640 hours + 2,688 hours) + (249 MFRs
x 8 hours to maintain purchaser lists).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ For more information about how we derived these and certain
other estimates, please see 81 FR 70269 (October 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We continue to estimate that an additional 40 hours will be needed
to account for major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adding details to
Part 573 Safety Recall Reports relating to the intended schedule for
notifying its dealers and distributors, and tailoring its notifications
to dealers and distributors in accordance with the requirements of 49
CFR 577.13. An additional 2 hours will be needed to account for this
obligation in other manufacturers' Safety Recall Reports. This burden
is estimated at 13,984 hours annually (672 notices x 2 hours/
notification) + (316 notices x 40 hours/notification).
49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires manufacturers to provide to the Agency
copies of all communications regarding defects and noncompliances sent
to owners, purchasers, and dealerships. Manufacturers must index these
communications by the year, make, and model of the vehicle as well as
provide a concise summary of the subject of the communication. We
continue to estimate this burden requires 3 hours for each vehicle
recall for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers, and 30 minutes
for all other manufacturers for each vehicle recall. This totals an
estimated 1,284 hours annually (316 recalls x 3 hours for the 17 major
passenger-vehicle manufacturers) + (672 recalls x .5 for all other
manufacturers).
In the event a manufacturer supplied the defective or noncompliant
product to independent dealers through independent distributors, that
manufacturer is required to include in its notifications to those
distributors an instruction that the distributors are then to provide
copies of the manufacturer's notification of the defect or
noncompliance to all known distributors or retail outlets further down
the distribution chain within five working days. See 49 CFR
577.7(c)(2)(iv). As a practical matter, this requirement would only
apply to equipment manufacturers, since vehicle manufacturers generally
sell and lease vehicles through a dealer network, and not through
independent distributors. We believe our previous estimate of 87
equipment recalls per year needs to be adjusted to 91 equipment recalls
per year to better reflect recent data. We have estimated the burden
associated with these notifications (identifying retail outlets, making
copies of the manufacturer's notice, and mailing) to be 5 hours per
recall campaign. Assuming an average of 3 distributors per equipment
item, which is a liberal estimate given that many equipment
manufacturers do not use independent distributors, the total number of
burden hours associated with this third-party notification requirement
is approximately 1,365 hours per year (91 recalls x 3 distributors x 5
hours).
As for the burden linked with a manufacturer's preparation of and
notification concerning its reimbursement for pre-notification
remedies, we continue to estimate that the preparation of a
reimbursement plan takes approximately 4 hours annually. We also
continue to estimate that an additional 1.5 hours per year is spent by
the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adapting the plan to
particular defect and noncompliance notifications to NHTSA and adding
tailored language about the plan to a particular safety recall's owner
notification letters, while an additional .5 hours per year is spent on
this task by all other manufacturers. And we continue to estimate that
an additional 12 hours annually is spent disseminating plan
information, for a total of 4,794 annual burden hours ((249 MFRs x 4
hours to prepare plan) + (316 recalls x 1.5 hours tailoring plan for
each recall) + (672 recalls x .5 hours) + (249 MFRs x 12 hours to
disseminate plan information)).
The Safety Act and 49 CFR part 573 also contain numerous
information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy
campaigns, as well as a statutory and regulatory reporting requirement
that anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or leases a defective
or noncompliant tire notify NHTSA of that activity.
Manufacturers are required to include specific information related
to tire disposal in the notifications they provide NHTSA concerning
identification of a safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS in their
tires, as well as in the notifications they issue to their dealers or
other tire outlets participating in the recall campaign. See 49 CFR
573.6(c)(9). We believe our previous estimate of 12 tire recalls per
year needs to be adjusted to 11 tire recalls per year to better reflect
recent data. We continue to estimate that the inclusion of this
additional information will require an additional two hours of effort
beyond the subtotal above associated with non-tire recall campaigns.
This additional effort consists of one hour for the NHTSA notification
and one hour for the dealer notification for a total of 22 burden hours
(11 tire recalls a year x 2 hours per recall).
Manufacturer-owned or controlled dealers are required to notify the
manufacturer and provide certain information should they deviate from
the manufacturer's disposal plan. Consistent with our previous
analysis, we continue to ascribe zero burden hours to this requirement
since to date no such reports have been provided, and our original
expectation that dealers would comply with manufacturers' plans has
proven accurate.
Accordingly, we estimate 22 burden hours a year will be spent
complying with the tire recall campaign requirements found in 49 CFR
573.6(c)(9).
The agency continues to estimate 1 burden hour annually will be
spent preparing and submitting reports of a defective or noncompliant
tire being intentionally sold or leased under 49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and
its implementing regulation at 49 CFR 573.10.
We continue to expect that nine vehicle manufacturers, who did not
operate VIN-based recalls lookup systems prior to August 2013, incur
certain recurring burdens on an annual basis. We continue to estimate
that 100 burden hours will be spent on system and database
administrator support. These 100 burden hours include: Backup data
management and monitoring; database management, updates, and log
management; and data transfer, archiving, quality assurance, and
cleanup procedures. We continue to estimate another 100 burden hours
will be incurred on web/application developer support. These burdens
include: Operating system and security patch management; application/
web server management; and application server system and log files
management. We continue to estimate these burdens will total 1,800
hours each year (9 MFRs x 200 hours). We also continue to estimate the
recurring costs of these burden hours will be $30,000 per

[[Page 45831]]

manufacturer.\5\ Furthermore, we continue to estimate that the total
cost to the industry from these recurring expenses will total $270,000,
on an annual basis (9 MFRs x $30,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ $8,000 (for data center hosting for the physical server) +
$12,000 (for system and database administrator support) + $10,000
(for web/application developer support) = $30,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to 49 CFR part 573 in 2013 required 27 manufacturers to
update each recalled vehicle's repair status no less than every 7 days,
for 15 years from the date the VIN is known to be included in the
recall. This ongoing requirement to update the status of a VIN for 15
years continues to add a recurring burden on top of the one-time burden
to implement and operate these online search tools. We continue to
estimate that 8 affected motorcycle manufacturers will make recalled
VINs available for an average of 2 recalls each year and 19 affected
passenger-vehicle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for
an average of 8 recalls each year. We believe it will take no more than
1 hour, and potentially less with automated systems, to update the VIN
status of vehicles that have been remedied under the manufacturer's
remedy program. We continue to estimate this will require 8,736 burden
hours per year (1 hour x 2 recalls x 52 weeks x 8 MFRs + 1 hour x 8
recalls x 52 weeks x 19 MFRs) to support the requirement to update the
recalls completion status of each VIN in a recall at least weekly for
15 years.
As the number of Part 573 Recall Reports has increased in recent
years, so has the number of quarterly reports that track the completion
of safety recalls. Our previous estimate of 4,498 quarterly reports
received annually is now revised upwards to 5,512 quarter reports
received annually. We continue to estimate it takes manufacturers 1
hour to gather the pertinent information for each quarterly report, and
10 additional hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers to
submit electronic reports. We therefore now estimate that the quarterly
reporting burden pursuant to Part 573 totals 5,682 hours ((5,512
quarterly reports x 1 hour/report) + (17 MFRs x 10 hours for electronic
submission)).
We continue to estimate a small burden of 2 hours annually in order
to set up a manufacturer's online recalls portal account with the
pertinent contact information and maintaining/updating their account
information as needed. We estimate this will require a total of 498
hours annually (2 hours x 249 MFRs).
We continue to estimate that 20 percent of Part 573 reports will
involve a change or addition regarding recall components, and that at
two hours per amended report, this totals 396 burden hours per year
(988 recalls x .20 = 193 recalls; 198 x 2 = 396 hours).
As to the requirement that manufacturers notify NHTSA in the event
of a bankruptcy, we expect this notification to take an estimated 2
hours to draft and submit to NHTSA. We continue to estimate that only
10 manufacturers might submit such a notice to NHTSA each year, so we
calculate the total burden at 20 hours (10 MFRs x 2 hours).
We continue to estimate that it takes the 17 major passenger-
vehicle manufacturers an average of 11 hours to draft their
notification letters, submit them to NHTSA for review, and then
finalize them for mailing to their affected owners and purchasers. We
also continue to estimate it takes 8 hours for all other manufacturers
to perform this task. Accordingly, we estimate that the 49 CFR part 577
requirements result in 8,852 burden hours annually (11 hours per recall
x 316 recalls per year) + (8 hours per recall x 672 recalls per year).
The burden estimate associated with the regulation that requires
interim owner notifications within 60 days of filing a Part 573 Safety
Recall Report must be revised upward. We previously calculated that
about 12 percent of past recalls require an interim notification
mailing, but recent trends show that 13 percent of recalls require an
interim owner notification mailing. We continue to estimate the
preparation of an interim notification can take up to 10 hours. We
therefore estimate that 1,250 burden hours are associated with the 60-
day interim notification requirement (963 recalls x .13 = 125 recalls;
125 recalls times 10 hours per recall = 1,250 hours).
As for costs associated with notifying owners and purchasers of
recalls, to reflect an increase in postage rates, we are revising our
estimate of the cost of first-class mail notification to $1.53 per
notification, on average. This cost estimate includes the costs of
printing and mailing, as well as the costs vehicle manufacturers may
pay to third-party vendors to acquire the names and addresses of the
current registered owners from state and territory departments of motor
vehicles. In reviewing recent recall figures, we determined that an
estimated 51.4 million letters are mailed yearly totaling $78,642,000
($1.53 per letter x 51,400,000 letters). The requirement in 49 CFR part
577 for a manufacturer to notify their affected customers within 60
days would add an additional $10,223,460 (51,400,000 letters x .13
requiring interim owner notifications = 6,682,000 letters; 6,682,000 x
$1.53 = $10,023,000). In total, we estimate that the current 49 CFR
part 577 requirements cost manufacturers a total of $88,865,460
annually ($78,642,000 for owner notification letters + $10,223,460 for
interim notification letters = $88,865,460).
As discussed above, to address the scope and complexity of the
Takata recalls, NHTSA issued the ACRO, which requires affected vehicle
manufacturers to conduct supplemental owner notification efforts in
coordination with NHTSA and the Independent Monitor of Takata. On
December 23, 2016, the Monitor, in consultation with NHTSA, issued
Coordinated Communications Recommendations for vehicle owner outreach
(``CCRs''), which includes a recommendation that vehicle manufacturers
provide at least one form of consumer outreach per month for vehicles
in a launched recall campaign (i.e., a recall where parts are
available) until the vehicle is remedied (unless otherwise accounted
for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise unreachable under
certain procedures in the ACRO). See CCRs ] 1(b); ACRO ]] 45-46. The
Monitor also recommended that manufacturers utilize at least three non-
traditional means of communication (e.g., postcards; email; telephone
calls; text message; social media) as part of their overall outreach
strategy. See CCRs ] 1(a). And the Monitor recommended including
certain content in these communications, including certain safety-risk
information. See id. ] 2. If a vehicle manufacturer does not wish to
follow the Monitor's recommendations, the ACRO permits the manufacturer
to propose an alternative communication strategy to NHTSA and the
Monitor. ACRO ] 42.
As noted above, two comments were submitted in response to the 60-
day notice of this information collection. One of those comments
appears to have been placed on the incorrect docket. The other comment,
filed by The Alliance (which also attached two previously filed
comments regarding this collection), responded to several facets of the
notice that touch on two primary issues: (1) The extent to which
various provisions of the ACRO are subject to the PRA (and whether the
investigatory exception applies to the PRA in this context); and (2)
the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate. The Alliance commented
that it believes that NHTSA should account for additional cost burdens
under the

[[Page 45832]]

ACRO beyond the monthly outreach recommended under the CCRs. See
Comments (Aug. 12, 2019) at 2-4. The Alliance also commented that NHTSA
underestimated the costs associated with this monthly outreach, and
that NHTSA should provide separate burden estimates for each category
of outreach and compare those burdens with ``evidence of
effectiveness.'' See id. at 2, 5. In addition, The Alliance commented
that NHTSA should account for Monitor-conducted surveys and other
activities, and provide ``information justifying the practical
utility'' of supplemental non-traditional outreach. See id. at 5. The
Alliance further commented that it disagrees with NHTSA's discounting
of its cost estimates based on vehicle manufacturer settlement
agreements in multi-district litigation proceedings. Id.
As to the extent to which various provision of the ACRO in addition
to the CCRs described above are subject to the PRA, The Alliance
previously commented that the investigatory exception to the PRA
applies `` `only after a case file or equivalent is opened with respect
to a particular party . . . and only with respect to `an administrative
action, investigation or audit involving an agency against specific
individuals or entities.' '' Comments (Jan. 22, 2018) at 2 (quoting 5
CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c)). The Alliance's position is that ``if there is
any relevant investigation,'' it is an investigation against Takata--
not the affected automakers, because they ``are not the target'' of the
investigation. Id. Therefore, the Alliance believes NHTSA should
account for burdens associated with other provisions of the ACRO,
beyond the monthly-outreach recommendations in the CCRs. See id. at 3-
4.
NHTSA is not persuaded that it should deviate from its approach.
The plain meaning of the statute specifically exempts collections of
information ``during the conduct of . . . an administrative action,
investigation, or audit involving an agency against specific
individuals or entities.'' 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis
added); 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), 1320.3(c). NHTSA's investigation is clearly
directed at ``specific individuals or entities''--both Takata and the
19 specifically named vehicle manufacturers that installed defective
Takata inflators. See Opening Resume for EA15-001.\6\ Indeed, the
Coordinated Remedy Order did not originally contain numerous vehicle
manufacturers that were, subsequently, added to the Program.\7\ After
an expansion of the recalls in light of new information, NHTSA
specifically added seven ``newly affected'' vehicle manufacturers to
the Coordinated Remedy Program in its Third Amendment to the
Coordinated Remedy Order. See ACRO ]] 8, 10, 31.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/INOA-EA15001-4970.PDF.
\7\ The ``original affected manufacturers'' were: BMW of North
America, LLC; FCA US, LLC; Daimler Trucks North America, LLC;
Daimler Vans USA, LLC; Ford Motor Company; General Motors, LLC;
American Honda Motor Company; Mazda North American Operations;
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.; Nissan North America, Inc.;
Subaru of America, Inc.; and Toyota Motor Engineering and
Manufacturing.
\8\ These newly affected manufacturers were: Ferrari North
America, Inc.; Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC; McLaren
Automotive, Ltd.; Mercedes-Benz US, LLC; Tesla Motors, Inc.;
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; and, based on a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Agency, Karma Automotive (as to certain
Fisker vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, contrary to Alliance and Global's suggestion, these orders
are not generalized so as to apply broadly ``to a category of
individuals or entities, such as a class of licensees or an industry''
under the PRA. See Comments (January 22, 2018) at 2 (citing 5 CFR
1320.4(c)). Rather, the orders are limited to specific vehicle
manufacturers the Agency has identified as affected by the Takata air
bag recalls. See also Shell Oil Co. v. Babbitt, 945 F. Supp. 792, 806
(D. Del. 1996) (rejecting argument that agency's investigations were
limited to subjects covered in forms agency uses for routine inquiries,
noting it is untenable to ``to limit [the agency] in a way that would
seriously curtail its investigative efforts and in a way Congress never
intended in passing'' an agency statute and the PRA); id. at 805-06
(observing a ``long line of cases recognizing that an administrative
agency's authority when it requests records and undertakes
investigatory functions related to its responsibilities is very
broad''); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1445 (10th Cir.
1990) (recognizing courts holding that PRA is inapplicable to forms
requesting information issued in investigation against an individual to
determine tax liability); Pitts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
T.C. Memo 2010-101, 10 (May 6, 2010) (rejecting interpretation that PRA
applies to tax collection due-process hearings because the hearings
involve a ``category of individuals'' asked to submit a form).
In sum, NHTSA is conducting an ongoing administrative action and
investigation into particular parties--both Takata and the specifically
enumerated affected vehicle manufacturers--as governed by the Takata
Coordinated Remedy Program. The Program is constructed and implemented
through various Agency orders (principally the Coordinated Remedy Order
and amendments) directed specifically at a discrete, finite number of
entities, including only those vehicle manufacturers affected by the
Takata recalls. Accordingly, NHTSA's responses to comments and its
burden estimates are limited to the monthly-outreach recommendation in
the CCRs.
Furthermore, to the burden estimate, NHTSA acknowledges the ``wide
variety of outreach methods contemplated by the ACRO,'' and agrees with
the Alliance's recognition that estimating per-VIN outreach cost is a
difficult task given that outreach populations change and, with those
changes, the methods necessary to engage those populations also
changes. See Comments (Jan. 22, 2018) at 4; Comments (Aug. 12, 2019).
The Alliance notes that costs of outreach per VIN may have increased as
the recalls have progressed. Comments (Aug. 12, 2019) at 2. The
Alliance also states that NHTSA should separately estimate the burdens
for each category of outreach and compare the burden with the
outreach's effectiveness. Id.
The CCR provisions recommend ``[e]ngaging in outreach specific to
the Takata airbag recall employing at least three'' methods of non-
traditional outreach, ``to ensure that each vehicle in a launched
campaign receives at least one form of outreach per month until the
vehicle is repaired'' (unless the vehicle can otherwise be accounted
for as set forth in the ACRO). CCRs at 1 (emphases in original). Thus,
the CCRs provide manufacturers wide latitude, and what specific
outreach methods a vehicle manufacturer employs is the vehicle
manufacturer's decision.\9\ The CCRs do not state that vehicle
manufacturers must engage in, e.g., canvassing when the remaining
recalled vehicle population reaches a certain threshold. NHTSA and the
Independent Monitor have simply identified for vehicle manufacturers
potential ways to achieve high completion rates for certain vehicle
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ If a vehicle manufacturer does not wish to follow the
Monitor's recommendations, the ACRO permits the manufacturer to
propose an alternative communication strategy to NHTSA and the
Monitor. ACRO ] 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA recognizes that as vehicles are repaired, the harder-to-reach
owners comprise a larger portion of the remaining unrepaired
population, and that as manufacturers adopt more intensive outreach
methods, outreach may prove more expensive. NHTSA also notes, however,
that while certain forms of non-traditional outreach may be more
expensive than others (such as

[[Page 45833]]

canvassing), such outreach may not be occurring on a monthly basis, nor
for all affected VINs. Balancing these considerations, NHTSA is
revising its estimate of the cost of monthly outreach upward to $10/VIN
per month, and welcomes further comment on the particular combination
of outreach methods in which manufacturers are engaging on a monthly
basis and associated costs therewith. In addition, although The
Alliance does not specifically comment on the burden hours associated
with non-traditional outreach,\10\ NHTSA recognizes that as the recalls
progress and there is more frequent implementation of more-intensive
outreach methods, the associated burden hours may also increase.
Accordingly, NHTSA is also revising its estimate of the monthly burden
upward from 2 hours to 10 hours to prepare and administer non-
traditional outreach. NHTSA welcomes any additional insights from The
Alliance regarding the specifics of its members' outreach costs and
burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ In its August 12, 2019 comments, The Alliance notes the
burden associated with monthly outreach ``[v]aries widely among
manufacturers, but includes multi-OEM canvassing activities that are
very labor intensive.'' Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the effectiveness and ``practical utility'' of outreach under
the CCRs, this is in part reflected in the 2017 State of the Takata
Airbag Recalls report from the Independent Monitor.\11\ Notably,
completion percentages for recalls of the oldest vehicles under the
Takata Coordinated Remedy Program avoided a ``leveling off'' in
completion percentage typically observed for recall campaigns involving
vehicles 10 years or older, and this can be attributed to, at least in
part, the ACRO and associated CCRs.\12\ Another example is the
completion percentages for Priority Group 4 vehicles which, for the
first two quarters, were triple that of the completion percentages for
recall campaigns launched prior to Coordinated Remedy Order in their
first two quarters.\13\ And a further example can be seen in completion
percentages in the first six quarters for Priority Group 4 vehicles,
which were twice as high compared to completion percentages in the
first six quarters for vehicles with recall campaigns that were already
underway before the Coordinated Remedy Order.\14\ As noted in the
Monitor's report, those campaigns ``achieved in just two quarters what
previously took more than five.'' \15\ The Monitor's recent Update on
the State of the Takata Airbag Recalls further discusses the efficacy
of outreach, including an observation that most 2017 focus-group
participants indicated that contact for a reminder regarding a serious,
urgent safety risk should occur at least weekly, with almost two-thirds
of survey respondents indicating several notifications each month would
be appropriate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ This report is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/recall-spotlight/state-takata-recalls.
\12\ See State of the Takata Airbag Recalls at 66, fig.37.
\13\ See id. at 68, fig.39. Recall campaigns for Priority Group
4 vehicles were scheduled to launch March 31, 2017--after the ACRO
and CCRs were issued. Most recall campaigns launched at that time.
As noted in the Independent Monitor's report, before the issuance of
the ACRO and the CCRs, recall campaigns ``used mainly infrequent,
letter-only communication.'' See id. at 67.
\14\ Again, recall campaigns for Priority Group 4 vehicles were
scheduled to launch March 31, 2017--after the ACRO and CCRs were
issued. Most recall campaigns launched at that time. Note that
Priority Group 4 data for quarters 3 through 6 consist of data from
one vehicle manufacturer, which launched its Priority Group 5
campaign early (and therefore, at the time of the report, had six
quarters of data).
\15\ See id. at 69, fig.40.
\16\ Update on the State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (2018) at
14, fig.9, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.v2.pdf. The Agency
and the Independent Monitor have been and remain open to sharing
information about the efficacy of certain methods of outreach to
better guide vehicle manufacturers in executing their recall
campaigns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maintaining such momentum--through mechanisms such as monthly
outreach--is vital to the success of the recalls. And this is a goal in
which Congress continues to take significant interest, including at a
hearing on the issue on March 20, 2018. The Takata Monitor testified at
that hearing: ``Vehicle manufacturers using frequent, multi-channel
outreach have seen completion percentages nearly twice as high as rates
for vehicle manufacturers using traditional letter outreach, when
targeting similarly situated vehicles over the same period of time.''
\17\ Two vehicle manufacturers likewise testified about their use of
innovative outreach strategies to reach consumers and convince them to
come in for a free repair.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Written Testimony of John D. Buretta, Independent Monitor,
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=EAE03543-B332-480F-8390-B301E8F79CBB.
\18\ Written testimony of Rick Schostek, Honda North America;
Written Testimony of Desi Ujkashevic, Ford Motor Company, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=EAE03543-B332-480F-8390-B301E8F79CBB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to accounting for Monitor-conducted surveys and other
activities, as a general matter, monitors are ``an independent third-
party, not an employee or agent of the corporation or of the
Government.'' \19\ Moreover, for the reasons described above, any such
``collection of information'' is subject to the PRA's investigatory
exception. Additionally, it should be noted that such research was not
a prerequisite to the implementation of the monthly-outreach provisions
in the CCRs. As NHTSA previously observed in its notices, various other
sources served as the bases for this recommendation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-163-selection-and-use-monitors.
\20\ See 82 FR 45941, 45945 & ns.5--6 (Oct. 2, 2017); 82 FR
60789, 60794 & n.6 (Dec. 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to discounting our cost estimates based on vehicle
manufacturers' settlement agreements in multi-district litigation
proceedings, The Alliance's position is essentially that the ACRO
predates the MDL settlement, and that ``[t]he settling companies would
have set aside more than $1Billion to comply with [the] ACRO, even if
there had been no MDL settlement.'' \21\ Comments (Aug. 12, 2019) at 5.
The Agency disagrees that this dictates a change in its approach. While
the ACRO predates the MDL settlements, the agency must, on an ongoing
basis, consider all attendant circumstances and be forward-looking in
estimating the costs associated with its initiatives--consistent with
the forward-looking purpose of its statute: ``to reduce traffic
accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.''
49. U.S.C. 30101; see id. 30118(c)(1) (notification of vehicle owners
of a defect); id. 30119 (notification procedures); id. 30120(d)
(manufacturer's remedy program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Those manufacturers are Toyota; Subaru; Nissan; BMW; Mazda;
Honda; and Ford. See generally In re: Takata Airbag Products Liab.
Litig., 14-cv-24009, MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.). Our 60-day notice
only accounted for six vehicle manufacturers that have entered into
settlement agreements--there are seven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At present, settling vehicle manufacturers have already chosen to
enter into these settlement agreements, and looking forward, these
vehicle manufacturers must comply with its terms--including provisions
for enhanced outreach efforts. It is appropriate that NHTSA's burden
estimate discounts for enhanced outreach that will occur regardless of
the ACRO. In fact, the Agency's view is that outreach conducted under
the settlements appear to satisfy the minimum recommendations of the
ACRO and CCRs. The Alliance's comments that costs associated with the
ACRO were considered when executing the settlement agreements, or that
manufacturers would have set aside those funds to comply with the ACRO
in the absence of a settlement, do not affect this. But for NHTSA's
ACRO, as NHTSA is presently submitting its information-collection
renewal, settling

[[Page 45834]]

MDL vehicle manufacturers would still conduct outreach that would
satisfy the ACRO's requirements--and therefore the monthly outreach
under the ACRO is not a marginal ``burden'' for those vehicle
manufacturers for which the Agency must account in this collection.
To account for the progression of the recalls since its last
notice, NHTSA is revising its previous estimates associated with this
part of the collection. NHTSA continues to estimate a yearly average of
19 manufacturers will be issuing monthly supplemental communications
over the next three years pursuant to the ACRO and the CCRs.
Manufacturers may satisfy the CCRs through third-party vendors (which
have been utilized by many manufacturers), in-house strategies, or some
combination thereof. NHTSA estimates the cost for supplemental
communications at $10.00 per VIN per month.
The volume of outreach required by the ACRO and the CCRs (and the
costs associated with that outreach) is a function of the number of
unrepaired vehicles that are in a launched campaign and are not
otherwise accounted for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise
unreachable. The schedule in Paragraph 35 of the ACRO delineates the
expected remedy completion rate, by quarter, of vehicles in a launched
remedy campaign.
Utilizing these variables, we now estimate an initial annualized
cost over the next three years of $1,018,882,470 per year, with an
annualized discount of $541,833,140 to account for outreach conducted
pursuant to the MDL settlement agreements by seven vehicle
manufacturers, for a net annualized cost of $477,049,330. NHTSA
estimates that manufacturers will take an average of 10 hours each
month drafting or customizing supplemental recall communications
utilizing non-traditional means, submitting them to NHTSA for review,
and finalizing them to send to affected owners and purchasers. NHTSA
therefore estimates that 2280 burden hours annually are associated with
issuing these supplemental recall communications, with an annualized
discount of 840 hours to account for outreach conducted pursuant to the
MDL settlement agreements by seven vehicle manufacturers, for a net
annualized burden of 1440 hours.
Because of the forgoing burden estimates, we are revising the
burden estimate associated with this collection. The 49 CFR part 573
and 49 CFR part 577 requirements found in today's notice will require
66,004 hours each year. NHTSA estimates the labor cost for compiling
and submitting the required information under 49 CFR parts 573 and 577
to be $33.98 per hour using the Bureau of Labor's mean hourly wage
estimate for technical writers in the motor vehicle manufacturing
industry (Standard Occupational Classification # 27-3042).\22\ NHTSA
thus estimates that it will cost vehicle manufacturers $2,242,815.92 in
wage costs to comply with the Part 573 and 577 requirements. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics estimates that for private industry workers, wages
represent 70.1% of total compensation.\23\ Therefore, the total labor
cost associated with the hourly burden is estimated to be $3,199,453.
Accordingly, manufacturers impacted by 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part
577 requirements will incur a recurring annual cost estimated at
$92,334,913 total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, May 2018,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#47-0000, last
accessed August 26, 2019; US Office of Management and Budget.
Standard Occupation Classification Manual, 2018.
\23\ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation-March 2019,
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf, last accessed August
26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The burden estimate in this collection contemplated for conducting
supplemental recall communications under administrative order to
achieve completion of the Takata recalls is 1440 hours each year. That
administrative order contemplates impacted manufacturers incurring an
annual cost estimated at $477,049,330. NHTSA also estimates the labor
cost for compiling and submitting the required information to be $35.28
per hour using the Bureau of Labor's mean hourly wage estimate for
Media and Communications Workers in the motor vehicle manufacturing
industry (Standard Occupational Classification #27-3000).\24\ Assuming
that 1440 hours per year would be associated with issuing supplemental
recall communications, at an average cost of $35.28 per hour, NHTSA
estimates vehicle manufacturers will incur $50,803.20 (1440 hours x
$35.28) annually in wage costs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that for private industry workers, wages represent 70.1% of
total compensation.\25\ Therefore, the total labor cost associated with
the hourly burden of supplemental recall communications is estimated to
be $72,472.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, May 2018,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#47-0000, last
accessed August 26, 2019; US Office of Management and Budget.
Standard Occupation Classification Manual, 2018.
\25\ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation-March 2019,
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf, last accessed August
26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, in total, we estimate the burden associated with this
collection to be 67,444 hours each year, with a recurring annual cost
estimated at $569,456,715.47.
Estimated Number of Respondents--NHTSA estimates that there will be
approximately 249 manufacturers per year filing defect or noncompliance
reports and completing the other information collection
responsibilities associated with those filings. NHTSA estimates there
will be an average of 19 manufacturers each year conducting
supplemental nontraditional monthly outreach pursuant to administrative
order in an enforcement action associated with the Takata recalls.

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019-18820 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]18820
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P