Approved for six
months. The next submission (including the two Federal Register
notices that will precede it) should address the concerns, and
provide information, described below. We are concerned that this
information collection may be so unwarrantedly burdensome as to
frustrate the goals of both (a) the Paperwork Reduction Act (e.g.,
quality of information collection and burden minimization) and (b)
the authorizing statute (49 USC 30117(b)), by which purchasers of
defective tires can be contacted in a recall. In other words, this
information collection may be so cumbersome as to discourage the
reporting of contact information for possible use in a recall.
Additionally we were dismayed that the 60- and 30-day Federal
Register notices omitted the key fact that this collection was
necessary for any tire recalls and that the correction was
published July 12, 2006, late in the review process. As a result,
the opportunity for public comment was greatly curtailed. More
specifically, in the next submission and as appropriate in the
notices that proceed it, DOT/NHTSA should: 1. Take affirmative
steps to solicit public comment on how cost-effectively to reduce
burden and enhance the practical utility of this information
collection. 2. Estimate the percentage of individual purchasers of
replacement tires for which contact information is maintained that
is adequate to contact them, for two recent years of tire
purchases. For comparison, similarly estimate the percentage of new
vehicles for which there is adequate contact information maintained
for tire recalls, for two recent years of vehicle purchases. 3.
Provide each DOT evaluation of the success of procedures for
keeping records on first purchasers of tires, under 49 USC
30117(b)(3), including "the extent to which distributors and
dealers have encouraged first purchasers of tires to register the
tires" and "a detailed statement of the decision and an explanation
of the reasons for the decision". Also, estimate the extent to
which such mandated record-keeping is or is not cost-effective. 4.
Respond to the following: Does 49 CFR 574.7 specify a form to be
used? Why is the form set in a final rule? If that form is actually
required or offered, provide it to OMB. It should include a
currently valid control number and the consequences of failure to
provide a valid number. Include any such form in the notices--which
should specify collecting information for tire recalls--and solicit
comment on: (a) whether that is an efficient and effective way to
collect the information needed for recalls; (b) whether electronic
or telephonic collection of information would be more efficient;
and (c) generally, what form(s) of information collection would
most efficiently and effectively encourage tire sellers and
purchasers to provide recall information. 5. Determine whether or
not, under 49 USC 3017(b)or otherwise, the Secretary of DOT has the
authority by rule or otherwise to allow electronic (e.g., via the
Internet) or telephonic collection--in lieu of paper-based
collection--of the information pertinent to that provision. In the
opinion of DOT/NHTSA can such information collection procedures
change without a change in this rulemaking? Please explain why or
why not. If new rulemaking is needed, shouldn't that occur to
better achieve the goals of both the authorizing statute and the
PRA? 6. Clarify whether, under the statute and regulation, this
collection of information is voluntary or mandatory for the tire
dealer and, similarly, for the tire purchaser. 7. Refer to the
letter of July 18, 2003 from the NHTSA Chief Counsel to Ann Wilson
of the Rubber Manufacturers Association. Kindly explain why
telephone or electronic registration may be a supplement to the
required mail-in form, but not in lieu of it. Since burden is
properly estimated by the actual time taken, not by whether any
approach is voluntary or not, wouldn't registration that only
supplements a paper form lead to additional burdens? At the same
time couldn't an alternative--not a supplementary--approach reduce
total burden and be more effective? 8. Verify whether or not the
statute and rule require the contact/registration information be
kept for at least five years, not the three years listed in the
recent supporting statement, e.g., at #1? The next information
collection request should be consistent with this requirement.
Inventory as of this Action
Requested
Previously Approved
02/28/2007
36 Months From Approved
08/31/2006
54,000,000
0
54,000,000
250,000
0
245,000
5,400,000
0
5,610,000
Each tire manufacturer and rim
manufacturer must label their tire or rim with the applicable
safety information. These labeling requirements ensure tires are
mounted on the vehicles for which they are intended.
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that
the collection of information encompassed by this request complies
with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding
the proposed collection of information, that the certification
covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a
benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control
number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of
these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked
and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.
Tire Identification and Recordkeeping