30-day notice

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

45828

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices

Transportation is seeking approval to
collect information from licensed
drivers who have at least one speeding
citation or conviction in the previous
three years for a one-time voluntary
study of the effects of an education
course being developed that covers
vehicle speeds, laws, and the risks of
speeding on speeding behavior. NHTSA
proposes to approach up to 250 drivers
appearing at the Wake County, NC
district court because of speeding
infractions to ascertain their interest in
participating in the study after their case
has been adjudicated. Of those 250, we
expect to collect information from 150
potential participants determine their
eligibility for the study with the goal of
recruiting 100 voluntary participants.
The 100 participants will complete an
informed consent form, three driver
speeding questionnaires (before the
course, right after the course, and one
month after the course) to explore the
effects of the course on their attitudes
and beliefs regarding speeding as well
as their tendency to speed, a course
evaluation, and sensation-seeking
questionnaire to measure psychological
factors related to risky behaviors. In
addition, NHTSA will collect
naturalistic driving data, which involves
unobtrusive observation of driving in a
natural, on-road setting using a vehicle
instrumented with position, speed, and
other sensors. This collection is solely
reporting, and there are no recordkeeping costs to the respondents.
NHTSA will use the information to
produce a technical report that presents
the results of the study. The technical
report will provide aggregate (summary)
statistics and tables as well as the
results of statistical analysis of the
information, but it will not include any
personal information. The technical
report will be shared with State
highway offices, local governments, and
those who develop driver education and
traffic safety communications that aim
to reduce speed-related crashes. The
total estimated burden for recruiting 250
participants (42 hours), for screening
150 participants (23 hours) and for 100
participants to complete the study (600
hours) is 665 total hours.
Respondents: Participation in this
study will be voluntary, and 100
participants will be recruited from
drivers that attend the Wake County, NC
district court because of speeding
infractions after their case has been
adjudicated. An estimated 250 people
will be approached and have the study
described to them, and 150 people will
be screened to recruit the 100 who will
complete the study. Participants will be
licensed drivers over 18 years old who

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

have had a speeding citation in the past
3 years.
Estimated Time per Participant: The
estimated time for recruiting 250
possible participants is 10 minutes per
person. The estimated time for
screening the 150 possible participants
is nine minutes per person to complete
the screener questionnaire and provide
contact information. The estimated time
for the 100 study participants is six
hours per person to complete the
informed consent, take the three-hour
and 30-minute course, complete all
questionnaires, and wait for equipment
to be installed and uninstalled from
their vehicles.
Total Estimated Burden Hours: The
total estimated annual burden is 665
hours for the project activities.
Participation in this study is voluntary,
and there are no costs to respondents
beyond the time spent completing the
questionnaires and visits to the study
facility.
Frequency of Collection: This study is
one-time data collection, and there will
be no recurrence.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: NHTSA was established to
reduce deaths, injuries, and economic
losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes on the Nation’s highways. As
part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA
is authorized to conduct research for the
development of traffic safety programs.
In 2017, there were 9,717 fatalities in
speeding-related crashes—26% of all
fatal crashes. Public information and
education are important elements of any
effective speed management program.
Recent NHTSA research has indicated
that many drivers feel they lack
sufficient knowledge about speeding
and would like more information on
stopping distances, laws, and risks
involved. This project is designed to
examine the effectiveness of basic driver
education covering speed, laws, and
risks of speeding in changing driver
attitudes and behaviors regarding
speeding. This information will be
useful to State highway offices, local
governments, and those who develop
driver education and traffic safety
communications that aim to reduce
speed-related crashes.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Jon Krohmer,
Associate Administrator, Acting, Research
and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2019–18782 Filed 8–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

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.
SUMMARY:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices
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,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45829

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

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

45830

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices

estimate it takes a major passengervehicle 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 vehiclemanufacturers to be 12,640 hours
annually (316 notices × 40 hours/
report), and that all other manufacturers
require a total of 2,688 hours annually
(672 notices × 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 × 8
hours to maintain purchaser lists).4
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 × 2 hours/
notification) + (316 notices × 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 × 3 hours for the 17 major
passenger-vehicle manufacturers) + (672
recalls × .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
4 For more information about how we derived
these and certain other estimates, please see 81 FR
70269 (October 11, 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

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 × 3 distributors × 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 × 4 hours to prepare plan) + (316
recalls × 1.5 hours tailoring plan for
each recall) + (672 recalls × .5 hours) +
(249 MFRs × 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

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 × 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
× 200 hours). We also continue to
estimate the recurring costs of these
burden hours will be $30,000 per

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices
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 × $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 × 2 recalls × 52
weeks × 8 MFRs + 1 hour × 8 recalls ×
52 weeks × 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 × 1 hour/report) + (17
MFRs × 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 ×
249 MFRs).
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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

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 × .20 = 193
recalls; 198 × 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 × 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 × 316 recalls per year) + (8
hours per recall × 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 × .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 ×
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

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45831

$10,223,460 (51,400,000 letters × .13
requiring interim owner notifications =
6,682,000 letters; 6,682,000 × $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

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

45832

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices

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
6 https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/INOAEA15001-4970.PDF.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

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
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.
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).

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 monthlyoutreach 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.
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
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.

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

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 moreintensive 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 nontraditional outreach. NHTSA welcomes
any additional insights from The
Alliance regarding the specifics of its
members’ outreach costs and burdens.
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
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.
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, letteronly communication.’’ See id. at 67.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

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
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
As to accounting for Monitorconducted 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
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.
17 Written Testimony of John D. Buretta,
Independent Monitor, https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
hearings?ID=EAE03543-B332-480F-8390B301E8F79CBB.
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-8390B301E8F79CBB.
19 https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminalresource-manual-163-selection-and-use-monitors.

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45833

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 monthlyoutreach provisions in the CCRs. As
NHTSA previously observed in its
notices, various other sources served as
the bases for this recommendation.20
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).
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
20 See 82 FR 45941, 45945 & ns.5-–6 (Oct. 2,
2017); 82 FR 60789, 60794 & n.6 (Dec. 22, 2017).
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.

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

45834

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2019 / Notices

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 nontraditional 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:52 Aug 29, 2019

Jkt 247001

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.
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 × $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
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#470000, 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.
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#470000, last accessed August 26, 2019; US Office of
Management and Budget. Standard Occupation
Classification Manual, 2018.
25 Employer Costs for Employee CompensationMarch 2019, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/
ecec.pdf, last accessed August 26, 2019.

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

burden of supplemental recall
communications is estimated to be
$72,472.47.
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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Allowance of Information
Collection Request Submitted for
Public Comment; Transitional
Guidance Under Sections 162(f) and
6050X With Respect to Certain Fines,
Penalties, and Other Amounts
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

The Internal Revenue Service,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
invites the public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on proposed and/or
continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning
transitional guidance under sections
162(f) and 6050X with respect to certain
fines, penalties, and other amounts.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before October 29, 2019
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or
copies of the regulations should be
directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal
Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1