Updated Means of Providing Recall Notification, 1909-1922 [2024-31011]
Download as PDF
1909
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 90, No. 6
Friday, January 10, 2025
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 131, 230, and 233
[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0405; FRL–5868–04–
OW]
RIN 2040–AF62
Federal Baseline Water Quality
Standards for Indian Reservations;
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (the EPA or agency) is
withdrawing the proposed rule entitled
‘‘Federal Baseline Water Quality
Standards for Indian Reservations,’’
which published in the Federal Register
on May 5, 2023. The EPA is electing to
withdraw and not finalize the proposed
rule at this time. Instead, the EPA
intends to focus the agency’s resources
on engaging with Tribes to support
Tribes’ efforts to seek authority to
administer their own water quality
standards (WQS) program under the
Clean Water Act’s provision for eligible
Tribes to be treated in a similar manner
as states (TAS). The EPA will continue
to work closely with, and offer support
to, Tribes that are interested in pursuing
TAS to administer a WQS program and
developing their own WQS under the
Clean Water Act.
DATES: As of January 10, 2025, the
proposed rule published on May 5,
2023, at 88 FR 29496, is withdrawn.
ADDRESSES: U.S. EPA, Office of Water
(MC 4305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Ray, Office of Science and
Technology, Standards and Health
Protection Division, Office of Water (MC
4305T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566–
1433, ray.james@epa.gov. Additional
information is also available online at
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/
promulgation-tribal-baseline-waterquality-standards-under-clean-wateract.
In the
Federal Register of May 5, 2023 (88 FR
29496), the EPA issued a proposed rule
to establish Federal water quality
standards (WQS) for Indian reservation
waters that currently do not have WQS
in effect under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), with limited exceptions. These
WQS (referred to as baseline WQS)
would establish human health and
environmental objectives as the basis for
CWA protections.
At this time, the EPA is withdrawing
this proposed rule to focus the agency’s
resources on engaging with Tribes to
support Tribes’ efforts to seek authority
to administer their own WQS program
under the CWA’s provision for eligible
Tribes to be treated in a similar manner
as states (TAS) and develop their own
WQS under the CWA.
The EPA has worked closely with
Tribes to provide information about the
TAS and WQS approval processes and
has developed materials to assist Tribes
that decide to work towards EPAapproved WQS.1 To date, 52 of the 84
Tribes with TAS have submitted Tribal
WQS that the EPA has approved as
applicable WQS for the Tribes’ Indian
reservation waters.2 It remains the
EPA’s preference for Tribes to obtain
TAS and develop WQS under the CWA
that are tailored to the Tribes’
individual environmental goals and
reservation waters. The EPA will
continue to work with Tribes to build
their capacity and facilitate their
progression through the TAS and WQS
development and adoption processes.
The EPA provided a 90-day public
comment period after publishing the
proposed rule. The EPA received 3,314
comments, 59 of which are considered
unique comments that addressed a
range of issues pertaining to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Water Quality Standards Tools for Tribes,
https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-qualitystandards-tools-tribes; Tribes and Water Quality
Standards; https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/tribesand-water-quality-standards; Water Quality
Standards Academy; https://www.epa.gov/wqstech/water-quality-standards-academy.
2 The EPA’s website, EPA Actions on Tribal Water
Quality Standards and Contacts, lists these Tribes
and the dates their TAS authority and WQS were
approved: https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/epaactions-tribal-water-quality-standards-and-contacts.
The EPA updates this list continually.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed rule. After consideration of
that input and several complex issues
raised, the agency has insufficient time
to issue a final rule before the end of the
current Administration, and
independently, as explained above, is
choosing to shift its focus to supporting
the development and adoption of WQS
by Tribes for their reservation waters.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024–31219 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 577
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0001]
RIN 2127–AL66
Updated Means of Providing Recall
Notification
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP–21) and the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act), NHTSA is proposing to
amend the means of required recall
notification to include notification by
electronic means, in addition to firstclass mail, and proposing certain other
attendant obligations related to this
requirement. NHTSA is also proposing
to revise certain language that is
currently required for recall
notifications, as well as to update
certain language in the regulation and
the office designation for NHTSA’s
Recall Management Division and
NHTSA’s web address.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 11, 2025. In compliance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act,
NHTSA is also seeking comment on a
previously approved collection. See the
Paperwork Reduction Act section under
Regulatory Notices and Analyses below.
Please submit all comments relating to
the information collection requirements
to NHTSA and the Office of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1910
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Management and Budget (OMB) at the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section
on or before March 11, 2025. Comments
to OMB are most useful if submitted
within 30 days of publication.
Proposed compliance date: NHTSA
proposes to make the electronic
notification requirements in this
proposed rule applicable to recalls filed
one year or later following publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Early compliance is permitted but
optional. NHTSA proposes to make
compliance with all other requirements
in this proposed rule be required as of
the effective date of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Internet: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
• Facsimile: (202) 493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit your
comments, please include the docket
number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at (202)
366–9322.
Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act discussion below.
Privacy Act: Except as provided
below, all comments received into the
docket will be made public in their
entirety. The comments will be
searchable by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You should not include
information in your comment that you
do not want to be made public. You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or at https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may contact
Alexander Ansley, Chief, Recall
Management Division, at (202) 493–
0481. For legal issues, you may contact
Stephen Hench, Office of the Chief
Counsel, at (202) 366–5263.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Summary of Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notification Requirements Before and
After MAP–21 and the FAST Act
B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA’s
Responses
A. NHTSA’s Authority and Scope of the
Rule
B. Electronic Notification Requirements
1. Means of Required Electronic
Notification
2. Content of Required Electronic
Notification
3. Additional and Follow-Up Notification
Requirements
C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles Built
Prior to the Compliance Date, and Lead
Time
IV. Proposed Changes To Recall Notification
Requirements
V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part 577
A. Language in Recall Notifications
B. Updated Office and Website
Designations
C. Language Regarding FMVSS
Noncompliances
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,
14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
D. National Environmental Policy Act
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Executive Order 13211
J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
K. Privacy Act
L. Plain Language
I. Executive Summary
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21) authorized
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to amend the
means by which a manufacturer of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment provides recall notification
to owners, purchasers, and dealers that
a vehicle or equipment contains a defect
related to motor vehicle safety or does
not comply with an applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS).1 MAP–21 also authorized
NHTSA to order additional follow-up
recall notifications if a second
notification does not result in an
adequate number of motor vehicles or
equipment being returned for remedy.2
Congress later enacted the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation
1 Public Law 112–141, 31310, 126 Stat. 771
(2012).
2 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(FAST) Act, which mandated NHTSA
amend 49 CFR part 577 to require the
issuance of recall notifications to
owners and purchasers by electronic
means, in addition to first-class mail.3
On January 25, 2016, NHTSA issued
an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting
comments and supporting information
about how the agency may update the
means manufacturers must utilize to
effectively notify owners and purchasers
of a recall (whether as a first notification
or as a follow-up notification).4 On
September 2, 2016, after consideration
of comments received in response to the
ANPRM, NHTSA issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing to amend 49 CFR part 577 to
require that manufacturers issue recall
notifications to affected owners,
purchasers, and lessees by electronic
means in addition to first-class mail, as
well as require that follow-up recall
notifications be issued by electronic
means, in addition to first-class mail.5
For simplicity in the preamble of this
proposed rule, ‘‘owners’’ includes
lessees.
After further consideration, including
a review of the comments received in
response to the NPRM and based on
additional learnings—including
knowledge acquired through the
ongoing oversight of the Takata recalls,
where manufacturers commonly use
electronic forms of recall notification—
NHTSA is issuing this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM). NHTSA believes that this
supplemental proposal will better
ensure electronic recall notifications
reach and provide effective notice to
owners and purchasers. Effective recall
notifications are critical to ensuring that
as many vehicles and items of
equipment as possible are remedied,
addressing the safety risk of a defect or
noncompliance.6 In this SNPRM,
NHTSA again proposes to amend 49
CFR part 577 to require that
manufacturers issue recall notifications
to affected owners and purchasers by
electronic means in addition to firstclass mail. This multi-channel, multitouch approach helps to effectively
communicate a recall and motivate
completion.7 The increasing use of
electronic recall communications and
the agency’s greater understanding of
3 Public Law 114–94, 24104, 129 Stat. 1703
(2015).
4 81 FR 4007 (Jan. 25, 2016).
5 81 FR 60332 (Sept. 1, 2016).
6 See ‘‘Tips for Increasing Recall Completion
Rates,’’ https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehiclemanufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completionrates.
7 See id.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
potential data sources supporting such
communications over the last several
years has informed this supplemental
proposal.
After further consideration, NHTSA
believes certain meaningful changes to
its prior proposal are warranted and
invites comment on such changes. One
of the primary revisions from the NPRM
is what is now a two-tiered approach to
issuing electronic recall notification.
This approach first requires all
reasonable efforts to send electronic
notification through contact information
specific to each owner and purchaser.
Then, if electronic notification cannot
be sent in that manner, the electronic
notification must be issued by other
electronic means reasonably calculated
to reach the owners and purchasers who
could not be reached through individual
contact information. The main purpose
of this approach is to promote the use
of notifications that are most likely to
reach and persuade owners and
purchasers. Such notifications are, in
the agency’s experience—including
from working with over a dozen vehicle
manufacturers issuing numerous
communications to owners in the
Takata recalls—direct communications
to the specific consumer.
Other revisions from the NPRM
include increased flexibility with
respect to the content of the electronic
notification, and an added requirement
that manufacturers submit to the agency
electronic notification plans that
describe anticipated approaches to
electronic recall notification.
NHTSA is also proposing several
revisions to 49 CFR part 577 that are not
specific to recall notification by
electronic means. One proposed
revision is to the language required on
the outside of each envelope containing
an owner notification letter under 49
CFR 577.5(a) and at the top of the owner
notification letter under 49 CFR
577.5(b), which NHTSA is proposing to
change from ‘‘SAFETY RECALL
NOTICE’’ and ‘‘IMPORTANT SAFETY
RECALL’’ (respectively) to ‘‘URGENT
SAFETY RECALL’’ in both locations. A
second proposed revision is to language
in 49 CFR 577.5 that currently refers to
a ‘‘failure to conform’’ and products that
‘‘fail to conform’’ to an applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
The proposed revisions read instead
‘‘does not comply with,’’ which is more
in alignment with the statutory language
and ordinary usage in this context.
NHTSA is also proposing to update the
website to which owners are to be
directed for recall notifications—
changing ‘‘https://www.safercar.gov’’ to
‘‘https://www.nhtsa.gov’’—and two
revisions to update the office
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
designation for NHTSA’s Recall
Management Division (changing ‘‘NVS–
215’’ to ‘‘NEF–107’’).
The agency invites public comment
on its additional proposed revisions to
part 577.
II. Background and Summary of Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notification Requirements Before and
After MAP–21 and the FAST Act
The National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act),
49 U.S.C. 30118(c), requires that, in the
event of a safety defect or
noncompliance with an applicable
FMVSS in a motor vehicle or
replacement equipment, manufacturers
must notify owners, purchasers, and
dealers of the vehicle or equipment
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. 49 U.S.C.
30119(d) governs how this notice is
given. Prior to MAP–21, for recalls of
vehicles, Section 30119(d) required
notice to be sent by first-class mail to
the registered owner or, if the registered
owner could not be identified, to the
most recent purchaser known to the
manufacturer.8 For recalls of
replacement equipment, the statute
required notification by first-class mail
to the most recent purchaser.9
Manufacturers were also required to
notify dealers under the statute ‘‘by
certified mail or quicker means if
available.’’ 10
In 2012, Section 31310 of MAP–21
amended the notice provisions in 49
U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary,
and by delegation NHTSA’s
Administrator,11 the flexibility to
determine the manner by which
notifications of recalls under 49 U.S.C.
30118 must be sent. The amended
statutory language permitted the agency
to engage in a rulemaking to require
notification by means other than (or in
addition to) first-class mail to owners
and purchasers of vehicles or equipment
subject to safety recalls. In 2015, the
FAST Act expounded on this authority
by specifically mandating the agency
amend 49 CFR 577.7 to include the
issuance of recall notifications by
8 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)–(B) (as effective to
September 30, 2012).
9 Id. Replacement equipment includes, e.g.,
motorcycle helmets and child restraint systems. See
49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) (providing that for
purposes of, inter alia, 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121,
‘‘replacement equipment’’ is motor vehicle
equipment that is not original equipment); id. sec.
30102(b)(1)(C) (defining original equipment as that
which is installed on a motor vehicle at the time
of delivery to the first purchaser); see also 49 CFR
573.4 (similar definitions).
10 Id. at 30119(d)(4).
11 NHTSA is delegated authority by the Secretary
of Transportation to carry out Chapter 301 of Title
49 of the United States Code. 49 CFR 501.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1911
electronic means in addition to
notification by first-class mail.12
While 49 U.S.C. 30119 previously
authorized the Secretary to order a
second recall notification if the
Secretary determined that the first
notification failed to result in an
adequate number of motor vehicles or
items of equipment being returned for
remedy, the statute was silent as to
notifications beyond this second
notification. Section 31310 of MAP–21
clarified this issue by amending 49
U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49
U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the
Secretary to order additional
notifications if the Secretary determines
that a second notification also failed to
result in an adequate number of motor
vehicles or items of equipment being
returned for remedy.
B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
In the NPRM issued in September
2016, NHTSA proposed amending 49
CFR 577.7 to require that manufacturers
issue recall notifications by electronic
means, in addition to first-class mail,
each time a recall notification is
required.13 The agency proposed that
‘‘electronic means’’ include ‘‘electronic
mail, text messages, radio, or television
notifications, vehicle infotainment
console messages, over-the-air alerts,
social media or targeted online
campaigns, phone calls, including
automated phone calls, or other real
time means.’’ The proposal would have
permitted, without further direction,
manufacturer discretion to select the
electronic means. NHTSA also proposed
retaining agency discretion to require
manufacturers to issue additional recall
notifications by other electronic means
if a manufacturer’s chosen means was
impractical, did not feasibly reach all of
the impacted purchasers or owners, or
the agency otherwise deemed the means
inappropriate.
NHTSA further proposed to require
that: electronic recall notifications
comply with the content requirements
in 49 CFR part 577; electronic recall
notifications provide a hyperlink to a
notice that complies with those
requirements, or the manufacturer
12 Notification to dealers and distributors is
generally required to be sent ‘‘by certified mail,
verifiable or electronic means such as receipts or
logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution
system, or other more expeditious and verifiable
means.’’ 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and
distributors are not notified by first-class mail.
Therefore, the FAST Act did not require the agency
to change the means of notification for dealers and
distributors, and NHTSA is not doing so here.
13 NHTSA issued an ANRPM on January 25, 2016.
That ANRPM is summarized in the NPRM. 81 FR
4007 (ANPRM); 81 FR 60332 (NPRM).
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
1912
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
provide a representative copy of such a
notice along with instructions on how
an owner can determine whether a
vehicle or an item of equipment is
impacted; and the electronic recall
notification direct recipients to
NHTSA’s VIN search tool and the
manufacturer’s search tool.14 NHTSA
also proposed amending 49 CFR 577.10,
consistent with the above, to clarify that
where NHTSA requires follow-up recall
notifications, those notifications must
be issued by electronic means, in
addition to first-class mail.
NHTSA invited comment on these
and any alternative proposals that
would allow manufacturers numerous
options for issuing electronic recall
notification while ensuring the
communication of the traditional
components of part 577 first-class
mailings. NHTSA specifically requested
comment on its proposals to: permit
manufacturer discretion as to the means
chosen to issue electronic notifications;
the agency’s proposed definition of
‘‘electronic means’’ and whether further
definition of the term ‘‘social media or
targeted online campaigns’’ was needed;
the agency’s proposal to require
manufacturers required to support
NHTSA’s VIN search tool and offer VINbased safety recall search tools on their
websites to include in their electronic
notifications directions to those tools;
and the agency’s clarification that
follow-up notifications must be issued
by, in addition to first-class mail,
electronic means consistent with the
rule.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA’s
Responses
NHTSA received comments from
fourteen commenters on its NPRM: Jeff
Burton (commenting as an individual);
School Bus Manufacturers Technical
Council (SBMTC); SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A.
(SafetyBeltSafe); Harley-Davidson Motor
Company (Harley-Davidson); National
School Transportation Association
(NSTA); Cummins, Inc. (Cummins);
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety
(Advocates); IHS Automotive (IHS); Tire
Industry Association (TIA); Rubber
Manufacturers Association (RMA);
Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA); National
14 Under 49 CFR 573.15, ‘‘[m]anufacturers that
have manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale,
introduced or delivered for introduction in
interstate commerce, or imported into the United
States 25,000 or more light vehicles, or 5,000 or
more motorcycles in the current calendar year or
prior calendar year’’ are required to support
NHTSA’s VIN search tool and offer VIN-based
safety recall search tools on its website pursuant to
existing regulation. NHTSA’s VIN search tool is
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA); and Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. and Association of
Global Automakers, Inc., which
submitted joint comments (Alliance and
Global). All comments were reviewed
and considered, and to the extent
relevant to this supplemental proposal
are discussed in this section by subject
matter.
A. NHTSA’s Authority and Scope of the
Rule
Alliance and Global commented that
Congress only intended the FAST Act to
authorize the issuance of recall
notifications using electronic means in
certain recalls—not to require the use of
electronic means for all recalls. Several
commenters also expressed concern that
the rule might conflict with certain
Federal laws such as the Controlling the
Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography
and Marketing Act (CAN–SPAM Act),
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act. NADA and
Alliance and Global requested that
NHTSA obtain acknowledgement from
the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) that notifications
issued under the rule would be
permitted under those laws.
NHTSA disagrees with the
interpretation from Alliance and Global.
The FAST Act specifically provides that
‘‘the Secretary shall prescribe a final
rule revising the regulations under [49
CFR 577.7] to include notification by
electronic means in addition to
notification by first-class mail.’’ 15 This
language mandates a change so that
electronic notifications are included in
the regulation with the same force as
first-class mail notifications and to
apply to all recalls, as first-class mail
notification currently does.
As to the concerns pertaining to
potential conflict with Federal laws,
NHTSA reiterates that this rule is legally
mandated, and based on the agency’s
analysis and judgment, NHTSA has
determined that this supplemental
proposed rule will not conflict with
these laws; recall notifications are
safety-related informational messages.
For many years manufacturers have
been using electronic means of recall
notification as a supplement to their
required mailed notices, and NHTSA is
unaware of the FCC or FTC taking any
adverse action against entities issuing
such electronic notifications. Indeed,
IHS commented that manufacturers are
already providing notifications via
channels other than first-class mail, and
15 Public
PO 00000
Law 114–94, 24104(a)(1) (2015).
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Alliance and Global acknowledged in
their comments that in recent recalls
many of its members have used various
electronic means of recall notification.
B. Electronic Notification Requirements
As a general matter, comments were
supportive of the proposed rule,
particularly for its potential to increase
the reach of recall notifications and the
flexibility it would afford manufacturers
by allowing them to choose the
electronic means best suited to a recall.
Many critical comments centered on the
specific means of electronic notification
proposed, and the specific content
proposed for those notifications.
Comments were also fairly extensive on
additional and follow-up notifications
under the proposal.
1. Means of Required Electronic
Notification
Comments on this topic included
IHS’s request that the regulations be
drafted broadly ‘‘so as not to limit the
means of providing notice which may
not be contemplated today.’’ Advocates
commented that NHTSA should require
manufacturers to issue electronic
notifications both directly to individuals
(e.g., through email), as well as issue
more general notifications (e.g., through
social-media campaigns), while Alliance
and Global commented that they do not
believe that every recall should require
both first-class mail and electronic
notification. RMA observed that tire
manufacturers do not receive electronic
contact information from tire purchasers
as part of the tire registration process,
and so it ‘‘strongly supports the
flexibility’’ for manufacturers to choose
the electronic means they use to provide
notification under the proposed rule.
TIA expressed concern with collecting
email addresses at the point of sale, and
requested NHTSA study and consider
establishing a third-party data
depository.16 Harley-Davidson, agreeing
with the flexibility of the rule, suggested
adding language to clarify that multiple,
different means of electronic
notification may be used in a single
recall to reach owners and purchasers.
Alliance and Global requested
clarification of the meaning of ‘‘other
media,’’ as included in the proposal,
given that the proposed rule would
require electronic recall
communication. Cummins requested the
final rule allow multiple manufacturers
16 TIA also submitted extensive comment on its
support for a TIN to VIN system. While NHTSA
recognizes there may be benefits to such a system
that, among other things, may make electronic
recall notification ‘‘easier,’’ the potential creation of
such a system is beyond the scope of this proposed
rule.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
involved in the same recall to issue
electronic recall notifications on behalf
of one another to collectively satisfy
their obligations.17
As explained further below, NHTSA
is proposing to require that
manufacturers issue both electronic and
first-class mail recall notifications for
every recall, but is modifying the rule
previously proposed in the NPRM with
a two-tiered approach to targeting
recipients of the notification.
Specifically, the proposed rule would
require that manufacturers use all
reasonable efforts to issue electronic
recall notifications through contact
information specific to each individual
owner and purchaser. If not every
affected owner and purchaser can be
reached through such notification (e.g.,
because relevant contact information is
unavailable), then manufacturers must
issue additional electronic notification
reasonably calculated to reach those
who are unreachable through contact
information specific to them (i.e., more
general forms of notification, such as
radio or social media campaigns).
NHTSA believes this approach best
promotes the use of electronic
notifications that are most likely to
reach affected owners and purchasers
and improve recall participation, while
at the same time mitigates costs to
manufacturers where all individual
owners and purchasers can otherwise be
notified directly through electronic
means.
Accordingly, under the proposed rule,
manufacturers may, and likely often
will, issue electronic notifications by
multiple means to address a single
recall and are not required to use one
specific means. NHTSA intends the
proposed rule to allow for multiple
electronic means and recognizes HarleyDavidson’s comment to add clearer
language to this effect, although the
agency believes that the relevant
provision’s definition that ‘‘include[s]
notification by any of the following’’
electronic means is sufficient.18 NHTSA
also believes it has sufficiently afforded
manufacturers the flexibility to choose
the electronic means by which they
issue recall notifications in the
17 For example, Manufacturers A and B could
agree that Manufacturer A will issue email
notifications on behalf of both manufacturers, and
Manufacturer B will issue a radio campaign and
first-class mail notifications on behalf of both
manufacturers—thereby satisfying, through
electronic mail, radio, and first-class mail, both
Manufacturer A’s and B’s obligations under the
rule.
18 Such a framework—allowing for a combination
of multiple electronic means as needed to notify
consumers—should also address TIA’s concern
about collecting one specific type of contact
information (email addresses) at the point of sale.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
proposed rule—including means, as IHS
commented, that ‘‘may not be
contemplated today’’—by providing an
extensive but non-exhaustive list of
potential electronic means of
notification in the proposed rule. In the
same vein, the proposed rule does not
attempt to further define, nor in any
particular way limit, ‘‘social media or
targeted online campaigns,’’ which
should alleviate concern that further
definition of that term could ‘‘constrain
innovation in the recall communication
space.’’
In further alignment with the
proposed rule’s flexibility, NHTSA
declines to limit ‘‘traditional broadcast
methods such as print media, radio and
television’’ to only ‘‘rare . . .
significant, large-scale recall[s],’’ as
RMA requested in its comments.
NHTSA emphasizes that manufacturers
must evaluate the circumstances of any
particular recall on a case-by-case basis
and does not wish to prospectively
limit—or, conversely, direct—the
potential use of certain electronic means
of notification. As explained above, to
improve recall participation while at the
same time mitigate costs to
manufacturers, the proposed rule
requires all reasonable efforts to issue
electronic notification using contact
information specific to individual
owners and purchasers, and where such
notification is not feasible, additional
means of notification (such as, perhaps,
some of the ‘‘traditional broadcast
methods’’ RMA references) are required.
NHTSA also declines in this proposed
rule to allow, as suggested by Cummins,
multiple manufacturers involved in the
same recall to issue electronic recall
notifications on behalf of one another to
collectively satisfy their electronicnotification obligations. NHTSA
certainly encourages manufacturers to
share recall-related knowledge,
information, and best practices with one
another. However, NHTSA believes that
requiring each manufacturer to
independently satisfy the notification
requirements in the proposed rule is
preferable to a ‘‘divide-and-conquer’’
approach—even where a manufacturer’s
notifications may overlap with those of
another involved manufacturer.19
NHTSA encourages coordination among
manufacturers to effectively address
recalls, although NHTSA believes that
the overall effectiveness of the rule is
19 While NHTSA acknowledges Cummins’s
concern that certain contact information may be
limited for some manufacturers, the agency believes
that with the numerous electronic means
available—including but not limited to those
referenced in the rule—even in such circumstances
manufacturers will be able to independently satisfy
their obligations.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1913
best advanced by each manufacturer
meeting the requirements on an
individual basis.
Indeed, a greater number of recall
notifications issued through a greater
variety of means should generally
increase recall participation and the
likelihood that notification will
ultimately reach all affected owners and
purchasers.20 If manufacturers were
permitted to satisfy their obligations
through other manufacturers’
notifications, recalls would involve
fewer notifications issued through fewer
means—which could have the opposite
effect. Furthermore, manufacturers
recurrently involved with one another
in the same recalls could, over time,
become dependent on each other to
issue notifications by certain electronic
means, which could negatively impact
the efficacy and development of
electronic notifications in future recalls.
Specifically, allowing manufacturers to
issue electronic notifications on behalf
of one another could discourage
manufacturers to, as each recall arises,
independently revisit and evaluate their
own universe of available electronic
means (and the effectiveness thereof).
Without the onus on each manufacturer
to reach its affected owners and
purchasers, manufacturers are unlikely
to improve their approaches to
electronic recall notification, e.g.,
through the gathering of additional
electronic contact information, or
exploring additional means that may be
more effective. Such improvements may
be critical to reaching affected owners
and purchasers in recalls that do not
involve multiple manufacturers
accustomed to issuing notifications on
one other’s behalf.
It should be reiterated from the NPRM
that this supplemental proposed rule
neither amends, nor alters, a
manufacturer’s obligations under 49
CFR part 573. Manufacturers must
continue to comply with 49 CFR 573.6
by filing representative copies of ‘‘all
notices, bulletins, and other
communications that relate directly to
the defect or noncompliance and are
sent to more than one manufacturer,
distributor, dealer, or purchaser.’’
Electronic notifications are notices,
bulletins, or other communications
20 Although perhaps some affected owners and
purchasers will be unmotivated to participate
regardless of the nature and number of notifications
they receive, based on the agency’s experience,
analysis, and judgment, the increased
dissemination of recall information far outweighs
this potential shortcoming. See generally 82 FR
60789, 60793–94 (Dec. 22, 2017) (explaining, in
discussion about the Takata air bag inflator recalls,
how available information supports notion that
frequent outreach via multiple communications
methods is effective).
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
1914
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
under 49 CFR 573.6. Currently,
manufacturers provide representative
copies to NHTSA via the online Recalls
Portal. Under this proposed rule,
manufacturers will continue to do so for
required electronic notification, as the
online Recalls Portal will be updated to
allow for manufacturers to select an
applicable electronic means of
notification. Representative copies of
notification are required even if a
manufacturer chooses to issue notices
via electronic means such as radio or
television notifications, vehicle
infotainment console message, over-theair alerts, telephone calls, or other
means. Recognizing the potentially large
file sizes of some such notifications,
however (e.g., videos), NHTSA
encourages manufacturers to submit
representative copies of electronic
notifications to the online Recalls Portal
in a file format or manner with minimal
storage requirements. Manufacturers
may submit, for example, hyperlinks to
the notification, screenshots of messages
or alerts, or scripts of calls or other radio
messages.
This supplemental proposed rule
requires recall notification by both
electronic means and first-class mail for
every recall, but not necessarily for
every instance of notification for that
recall. In short, a manufacturer must
provide electronic notification for both
the initial ‘‘interim’’ (if necessary, where
a remedy is unavailable at the time of
notification) and ‘‘final’’ recall
notifications.21 As described above, the
agency believes this requirement will
increase the likelihood that notification
will ultimately reach all affected owners
and purchasers and increase recall
participation. However, while the
Administrator may require follow-up
notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, this
proposed rule does not require those
notifications always be by both firstclass mail and electronic means.22 To
clarify, NHTSA is proposing to add
language relating to electronic means of
notification to 49 CFR 577.10(g) to
ensure that follow-up electronic
notifications issued under that section
conform to the requirements for
electronic notifications that are in this
supplemental proposed rule. NHTSA
21 Manufacturers must issue a recall notification
no later than 60 days from the date they file a defect
or noncompliance information report, and where a
remedy is unavailable at the time of that
notification, manufacturers must also issue a
second notification within a reasonable time (and
in accordance with part 577) once a remedy
becomes available. 49 CFR 577.7(a)(1).
22 The current regulation provides, in part, that
‘‘[t]he scope, timing, form, and content of such
follow-up notification will be established by the
Administrator, in consultation with the
manufacturer.’’ 49 CFR 577.10(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
also confirms that this supplemental
proposed rule requiring notification by
electronic means does not apply to
voluntary follow-up recall notifications,
although the agency encourages
manufacturers to issue notifications by
the means most likely to reach and
motivate affected owners and
purchasers. In addition, to address the
request from Alliance and Global to
clarify the meaning of ‘‘other media’’
under 49 CFR 577.10(g), that term may
include, for example, various forms of
print media other than first-class mail.
2. Content of Required Electronic
Notification
As to the content required in
notifications, IHS observed that the
proposed rule would require that
electronic recall notifications contain, in
addition to any applicable references to
VIN search tools, all the content that
must be included in first-class mail
notifications under 49 CFR 577.5.
Alliance and Global and IHS questioned
the value of such content because if the
first-class mail notification did not
result in recall completion, electronic
notification containing the same
language would be unlikely to yield a
different result. Alliance and Global,
while not ‘‘objecting’’ to the notion,
suggested that there could be value in
not requiring manufacturers to direct
viewers to VIN search tools in broad
electronic notification—and instead
allowing manufacturers more flexibility
in determining the content of such
notifications. IHS further hypothesized
a potential unintended consequence of
the rule’s content requirement: limiting
the electronic means used because the
extent of the required content may
render some electronic notifications
‘‘unintelligible.’’ Toyota observed that
requiring all the text in 577 would be
difficult for in-vehicle recall messages,
because owners would need to scroll to
view the entire message and may be
dissuaded from reading them. Toyota
noted it would be more effective if
messages in this format were ‘‘short and
to the point.’’
The NPRM did allow for providing, in
lieu of the content of the first-class mail
notice on the face of the electronic
notification, an internet hyperlink to
that content (or a representative copy of
a notice with that content). However,
this supplemental proposed rule is more
flexible, requiring that the content in
electronic notification must not be
‘‘inconsistent’’ with 49 U.S.C. 30119 (as
opposed to requiring compliance with
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49 CFR 577.7),23 and requiring an
internet hyperlink to a representative
copy of the first-class mail notice only
‘‘where practical and can be included in
a manner consistent with the purpose of
[49 CFR part 577].’’ Such an approach
should alleviate concerns about the
redundancy and/or unintelligibility of
electronic notifications. However,
consistent with its recent experience
and learnings in the recall space,
NHTSA also believes that, in some
cases, language from a first-class mail
notice might have a different effect on
an owner or purchaser when the means
of delivery is electronic—even if the
first-class mail notice did not motivate
the owner or purchaser to obtain a
remedy.24
As to Alliance and Global’s comments
questioning the value of directing
recipients to VIN search tools, NHTSA
considers such information vital to
improving recall participation.
Moreover, this content requirement is
minimally burdensome and does not, in
the agency’s view, substantially hinder
a manufacturer’s ability to, as Alliance
and Global state, ‘‘design electronic
notifications that might appeal to hardto-reach populations.’’ The requirement
also provides substantive consistency
between the first-class mail notice and
the electronic notice such that owners
are more likely to associate the notices
with one another, thereby reinforcing
their authority and credibility. NHTSA
is, however, revising its proposal to only
require that owners be directed to either
NHTSA’s or the manufacturer’s VIN
search tool (not both).
3. Additional and Follow-Up
Notification Requirements
Alliance and Global requested that
NHTSA justify why manufacturers must
issue every recall notification (including
follow-up notifications) by both
electronic means and first-class mail.
Alliance and Global also requested
confirmation that the proposed rule’s
electronic-notification requirement
would apply only to notifications issued
23 Note the proposed approach still requires
adherence to 49 CFR 577.8 (generally prohibiting
the inclusion of disclaimers).
24 See generally Tips for Increasing Recall
Completion Rates, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/
vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recallcompletion-rates (last visited Nov. 8, 2024) (noting
multi-channel outreach, including forms of
electronic communication); The Independent
Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated Remedy
Program, Update on the State of the Takata Airbag
Recalls (Jan. 23, 2020) at 8, available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/
update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls012320-tag.pdf (observing escalation of outreach
communications, both in frequency and in type,
‘‘has proven successful to engage previously
unresponsive affected vehicle owners’’).
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
pursuant to regulations—i.e., not to
voluntary follow-up notifications. As
explained above, while the
Administrator may require follow-up
notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, this
proposed rule does not require those
notifications always be by both firstclass mail and electronic means, and
this was not NHTSA’s intent in the
NPRM. Follow-up electronic
notifications that are issued under that
section would need to conform to the
requirements for electronic notifications
that are in this supplemental proposed
rule. Notification by electronic means is
also not required for voluntary followup recall notifications, although the
agency encourages manufacturers to
issue notifications by the means most
likely to reach and motivate affected
owners and purchasers.
EMA, Alliance and Global, and
Harley-Davidson also commented on
NHTSA’s discretion to require
manufacturers to issue additional
notification by other electronic means
where NHTSA deems that a
manufacturer’s chosen electronic means
is impractical, does not feasibly reach
all of the purchasers or owners
impacted, or is otherwise inappropriate.
Specifically, Harley-Davidson requested
clarification of what constitutes
‘‘impractical’’ and ‘‘inappropriate’’
electronic means of notification, as well
as clarification of what factors would
inform NHTSA whether to require a
manufacturer to issue additional
notification by other electronic means.
Harley-Davidson suggested that NHTSA
at a minimum consider the facts and
circumstances surrounding the recall,
including safety risk, scope, and recall
completion at the time of the
determination. EMA and Alliance and
Global expressed more foundational
concerns about NHTSA’s discretion.
Alliance and Global asserted that
NHTSA’s discretion would be
unfettered, and that NHTSA would be
able to exercise its discretion on every
recall because it is impossible to
identify an electronic communication
that will feasibly reach every affected
owner and purchaser. EMA suggested
that NHTSA might even require a
manufacturer to use a method of
notification that is ineffective or
impracticable.
To address such concerns, EMA and
Alliance and Global requested
regulatory provisions, including ‘‘safe
harbors,’’ to give deference to a
manufacturer’s chosen means of
electronic notification. Specifically,
EMA requested the rule require that
NHTSA consult with manufacturers
before the issuance of additional
notification by electronic means, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
further suggested a safe harbor for the
follow-up provisions of 49 CFR 577.10
to provide that NHTSA will not
ordinarily order a manufacturer to issue
additional notifications via an electronic
means different from that which the
manufacturer has chosen. Alliance and
Global also requested a safe harbor for
the issuance of additional notification
by electronic means: a presumption that
NHTSA will not ordinarily order a
different means of electronic
notification after it approves the form of
notification selected and identified by
the manufacturer in a report under 49
CFR part 573.
NHTSA again is proposing to retain
agency discretion to require
manufacturers to issue additional recall
notifications by other electronic means
if a manufacturer’s chosen means is
impractical, does not feasibly reach all
of the impacted purchasers or owners,
or the agency otherwise deems the
means inappropriate. NHTSA intends to
consider all relevant facts and
circumstances of each recall when
determining whether to require
additional notification by electronic
means, including but not limited to the
factors Harley-Davidson listed in its
comments. Some additional factors
NHTSA may consider are reflected in 49
CFR 577.10(b) (listing factors relevant to
whether to require follow-up
notifications).
As a general response to EMA’s and
Alliance and Global’s comments
expressing concern about NHTSA’s
discretion to require additional
notification by electronic means, the
agency reiterates that Congress
mandated NHTSA implement a rule
requiring manufacturers issue recall
notification by electronic means, and
the provisions of the FAST Act reflect
an interest in improving recall
notification and completion. NHTSA is
fulfilling this mandate pursuant to its
statutory and regulatory authority
through the framework set out in this
proposed rule which, including the
provisions retaining agency discretion,
is consistent with the purpose and
objectives of the Safety Act and
Congress’s intent.25
Alliance and Global expressed
particular concern that NHTSA could
exercise such discretion in every recall
because it is impossible to identify an
electronic communication that will
feasibly reach all affected owners and
purchasers. ‘‘Feasible’’ means, in most
relevant part, ‘‘capable of being done or
25 As to EMA’s more specific concern that
NHTSA may require a manufacturer to use an
ineffective or impracticable method of notification,
NHTSA has no intention of requiring any action
that fails to further the objectives of the Safety Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1915
carried out,’’ or ‘‘reasonable, likely.’’ 26
And NHTSA believes that for every
recall there will exist a notification by
electronic means, or a combination of
such means, that is reasonably likely to
reach each affected owner and
purchaser. Notably, in their comments
Alliance and Global cite only to
relatively individualized electronic
means of notification—stating they are
‘‘unaware of any email list, text message
directory, or social media outlet that
will reach all affected owners’’
(emphasis removed). There are many
other, broader electronic means
available that do not require such
information. The proposed rule
contemplates the very concern Alliance
and Global express here, and prescribes
(in fact, requires) a solution: additional
notification by general electronic means
reasonably calculated to reach other
affected owners and purchasers.
Adopting EMA’s proposal to require
that NHTSA consult with a
manufacturer before requiring
additional notification by electronic
means risks undermining a significant
cornerstone of the rule: flexibility
afforded to manufacturers to choose the
means of electronic notification. Part of
the appeal of such flexibility is that
manufacturers are often well-positioned
to gauge the likely effectiveness of
various electronic means of notification
for any particular recall.27 In accord
with this approach, NHTSA anticipates
exercising discretion to require
additional notifications by electronic
means in relatively limited situations, as
it does today for first-class mail
notifications.
Consultation with NHTSA may
become necessary, however, where a
manufacturer’s chosen means has not
produced results—i.e., an adequate
number of vehicles returned to
remedy.28 At that juncture NHTSA finds
it appropriate and in alignment with the
flexibility of the proposed rule that the
agency consult with the manufacturer to
develop an approach to improve the
effectiveness of its recall notifications.
This framework is already reflected in
the regulations, and NHTSA finds no
reason to add additional language to this
effect in 49 CFR 577.10, as EMA appears
to request.29 Similarly, as NHTSA
26 See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
feasible, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/feasible (last visited Nov. 8, 2024).
27 This flexibility may be particularly beneficial
when a recall involves vehicles not owned by
individuals, but entities—as SBMTC recognized
with respect to its school buses, which are owned
by fleet agencies, school districts, and counties.
28 See 49 CFR 577.10(a).
29 This supplemental proposed rule would merely
confirm that the Administrator also has the option
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
Continued
10JAP1
1916
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
believes this existing framework best
carries out Congress’s mandate and
balances, among other things, flexibility,
oversight, and accountability, the
agency also finds no reason to adopt an
explicit safe harbor or presumption to
defer to a manufacturer’s chosen means
of electronic notification.
This supplemental proposed rule,
however, includes a requirement not
included in the NPRM: that
manufacturers submit, by the effective
date of this rule, an ‘‘electronic recall
notification plan.’’ At a minimum, this
plan must describe the means of
electronic notification that the
manufacturer anticipates using for its
recalls (based on, e.g., the typical
contact information available for owners
and purchasers) and describe how the
manufacturer expects to approach the
selection of electronic means for a recall
(e.g., noting any preferences for certain
means, and why). A manufacturer’s
electronic recall notification must be
consistent with its plans unless the
manufacturer notifies NHTSA ten days
before the issuance of electronic
notifications that the notification will be
inconsistent with the plan. Such
electronic recall notification plans must
be submitted to the agency every five
years, although a revised plan may be
submitted at any time to account for
changes in approaches to electronic
recall notification. NHTSA believes this
requirement adequately apprises the
agency of each manufacturer’s general
approach to electronic recall
notification, while preserving
manufacturers’ flexibility to select
electronic means best suited for each
recall.
Currently, 49 CFR 573.15 requires
manufacturers of a certain number of
light vehicles or motorcycles in the
current or prior calendar year to support
NHTSA’s VIN search tool and offer VINbased safety recall search tools on their
websites. NHTSA requests public
comment on whether to implement a
similar threshold for this requirement to
submit an electronic recall notification
plan to NHTSA.
C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles
Built Before the Compliance Date, and
Lead Time
NHTSA proposes to make the
electronic notification requirements
applicable to recalls filed one year or
later following publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, with early
compliance permitted but optional.
NHTSA proposes to make compliance
to require follow-up notification by electronic
means (in addition to the option to require firstclass mail and/or other media).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
with all other requirements in this
proposed rule be required on the
effective date of the final rule.
EMA commented that the final rule
should not apply to recalled vehicles
built before the compliance date of the
rule. EMA requested this approach
because information to achieve the
likely most effective electronic means of
notification for heavy-duty vehicles—
email, telephone, and/or text—will not
in all cases be known to the
manufacturer until after the compliance
date of the final rule. Cummins
similarly requested, without additional
comment, that the final rule not apply
to vehicles manufactured prior to the
compliance date.
NHTSA declines to limit the proposed
rule’s applicability to only vehicles built
after the compliance date of the rule.
NHTSA recognizes that for some recalls,
individualized notification by electronic
means such as those EMA references in
its comments will be unavailable for
some affected owners and/or purchasers
because of the unavailability of the
owners’ or purchasers’ electronic
contact information. However, this does
not preclude a manufacturer from
issuing broader notification by other
electronic means to reach vehicle
owners, such as through radio or social
media. While direct notification through
contact information specific to the
owner is preferred, NHTSA has
contemplated the difficulties associated
with, among other things, recalls
involving older vehicles. Accordingly,
the proposed rule implements the twotiered approach discussed above:
requiring all reasonable efforts to effect
notification through contact information
specific to each owner, and where
notification cannot be effected in that
manner, requiring additional
notification by other electronic means
reasonably calculated to reach the
owners that could not be reached.
EMA also observed that the NPRM
did not address the lead time for
manufacturers ahead of when the
agency would require compliance with
this rule. EMA commented that the
compliance date should be no sooner
than one year after publication, which
would allow manufacturers to make
necessary changes to their databases and
systems. SBMTC requested a longer,
three-year lead time, stating that a
majority of manufacturers do not have
electronic notification systems or
necessary databases of information in
place. Cummins generally requested a
lead time sufficient to obtain relevant
data and build records.
NHTSA proposes to make the
electronic notification requirement
applicable to recalls filed one year or
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
later following publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. NHTSA
recognizes that manufacturers require
time to develop procedures and collect
information to effect notification by
electronic means as provided in this
supplemental proposed rule and
believes that one year is adequate for
manufacturers to do so. This lead time
will apply to all manufacturers,
regardless of whether they are
manufacturers of motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment, and
regardless of the type of motor vehicles
or motor vehicle equipment they
manufacture. Although manufacturers
will have this lead time, NHTSA
nonetheless would encourage the
adoption of the requirements as soon as
practicable.
IV. Proposed Changes To Recall
Notification Requirements
Accordingly, consistent with the
above, NHTSA is proposing the
following revisions to 49 CFR part 577
related to electronic recall notifications,
which differ in several respects from
what was previously proposed in the
NPRM.
NHTSA is, as it did in the NPRM,
proposing to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to
require that manufacturers issue recall
notifications by electronic means, in
addition to first-class mail, each time a
recall notification is required.
Notification by electronic means
includes notification by any of the
following: electronic mail, text message,
radio or television notification, invehicle notification, social media or
targeted online campaign, telephone call
(automated or otherwise), or other
similar electronic means. Copies of
proposed notifications by electronic
means must be submitted to NHTSA’s
Recall Management Division (NEF–107)
through the online Manufacturers Recall
Portal no fewer than five Federal
Government business days before the
manufacturer intends to begin sending
the notifications.
NHTSA is also differing from the
NPRM in that it is now proposing that
electronic recall notification be
accomplished using a two-tiered
approach. First, all reasonable efforts
must be made to transmit the
notification by electronic means through
contact information specific to each
individual owner and purchaser. Then,
where any such person(s) cannot be
notified in this manner, additional
notification by electronic means must be
issued that is reasonably calculated to
reach such person(s).
This supplemental proposal would
require that notification by electronic
means issued must not be inconsistent
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
with the notice that is required under 49
U.S.C. 30119. For any chosen electronic
means of notification, where practical
and where it can be included in a
manner consistent with this part, the
notification must include an internet
hyperlink to a representative copy of a
notice that complies with the content
requirements of 577.5(b) through (g),
along with instructions for how the
owner or purchaser can determine
whether his or her vehicle or equipment
is impacted. In addition, where
notification by electronic means is not
transmitted through contact information
specific to an individual owner or
purchaser, manufacturers subject to the
requirement in 49 CFR 573.15 to
provide recall information searchable by
vehicle identification number (VIN)
must direct people in that notification to
NHTSA’s VIN search tool or the
manufacturer’s VIN search tool.
The agency is again proposing to
retain discretion to require other
electronic means and additional
notifications if a manufacturer’s chosen
means is impractical, does not feasibly
reach all affected owners or purchasers,
or is otherwise deemed inappropriate.
NHTSA’s supplemental proposal here
also includes, unlike the NPRM, a
requirement that manufacturers, before
issuing an electronic notification and at
least once every five years, submit to
NHTSA’s Recall Management Division
(NEF–107) through the online
Manufacturers Recall Portal a plan for
the notification of owners and
purchasers of recalls by electronic
means. The plan must describe the
means of electronic notification that the
manufacturer anticipates using for its
recalls, and how the manufacturer will
evaluate the selection of the electronic
means used for a recall, including an
explanation of any preferences for the
use of certain electronic means. A
manufacturer’s electronic recall
notifications must be consistent with its
plans unless it notifies NHTSA no fewer
than ten Federal Government business
days before the anticipated issuance of
any such notifications that would be
inconsistent with its plan. An
accompanying explanation for the
inconsistency is also required under this
proposal.
Lastly, under this supplemental
proposed rule, any follow-up
notification sent by electronic means
must conform with the above
requirements. The Administrator may
authorize the use of other means besides
first-class mail and electronic means for
a follow-up notification.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part
577
Below are further revisions to part 577
in this supplemental proposed rule that
do not relate specifically to recall
notification by electronic means and
were not proposed in the NPRM.
A. Language in Recall Notifications
This supplemental proposed rule
includes revisions to the language
required on the outside of each
envelope containing an owner
notification letter under 49 CFR
577.5(a), and at the top of the owner
notification letter under 49 CFR
577.5(b). Currently, the former provision
requires the language ‘‘SAFETY
RECALL NOTICE’’ on the outside of
each envelope, and the latter requires
the language ‘‘IMPORTANT SAFETY
RECALL’’ at the top of the notification.
Effective recall messaging includes,
among other things, conveying a sense
of urgency.30 For example, in a survey
done by the Independent Monitor of
Takata of 262 drivers of vehicles
affected by the Takata air bag recalls,
‘‘results illustrated that communications
using high impact words and phrases
motivate affected vehicle owners to
act,’’ with respondents stating that
outreach should describe the recalls as,
among other things, ‘‘urgent.’’ 31
NHTSA is proposing to change both
statements above to ‘‘URGENT SAFETY
RECALL.’’ The agency believes that this
proposed change will improve the
impact that recall notifications have on
owners and further motivate them to
obtain a remedy. While NHTSA
recognizes that for certain recalls a
remedy is not immediately available, all
recalls involve either a defect that poses
an ‘‘unreasonable risk’’ or a
noncompliance with a safety standard
(which was adopted based on a finding
of a safety need, 49 U.S.C. 30111(a)).
NHTSA invites comment on this
proposed change.
B. Updated Office and Website
Designations
This supplemental proposed rule
revises two outdated references to the
office designation of NHTSA’s Recall
Management Division in 49 CFR
577.5(a), changing ‘‘NVS–215’’ to ‘‘NEF–
107.’’ In addition, the proposed rule
updates the website to which
30 See generally Tips for Increasing Recall
Completion Rates, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/
vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recallcompletion-rates (last visited Nov., 2024).
31 The Independent Monitor of Takata, Update on
the State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (Dec. 21,
2018), at 16, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/
sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/2018-update_on_
the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1917
manufacturers must direct owners in
recall notifications, changing ‘‘https://
www.safercar.gov’’ to NHTSA’s current
website, ‘‘https://www.nhtsa.gov.’’ 32
C. Language Regarding FMVSS
Noncompliances
49 CFR 577.5 contains two
references—in (a) and (c)(2)—to
circumstances where it is determined
that a motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment does not
conform with a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS). Specifically,
this language refers to a ‘‘failure to
conform’’ and products that ‘‘fail to
conform.’’ NHTSA is proposing to
change this language to instead read
‘‘does not comply with,’’ which is in
greater alignment with the statutory
language and ordinary usage in this
context.
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563,
14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed under Executive Order 12866,
Executive Order 13563, or Executive
Order 14094. NHTSA has considered
the impact of this rulemaking action
under the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. This action would amend
49 CFR part 577 to update the
procedures by which manufacturers
notify owners and purchasers of defects
and noncompliances in an effort to
improve vehicle safety recall
completion. This rulemaking imposes
no new significant burdens on the
manufacturers and does not create
significant related costs that would
require the development of a full cost/
benefit evaluation. Since this action also
does not change the number of entities
or individuals subject to this
requirement, the impacts of the rule are
limited.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the
impact of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that
this rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The amendments almost entirely affect
manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment.
SBA uses size standards based on the
North American Industry Classification
System (‘‘NAICS’’), Subsector 336—
Transportation Equipment
Manufacturing, which provides a small
32 https://www.safercar.gov currently redirects to
https://www.nhtsa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
1918
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
business size standard of 1,500
employees or fewer for automobile and
light duty motor vehicle manufacturing
businesses. Other motor vehicle-related
industries have lower size requirements
that range between 1,000 and 1,500
employees.33 Small businesses are
subject to the notification requirements
and therefore may be affected by the
proposed changes in this final rule.
However, the impacts of this rulemaking
on small businesses are minimal, as this
supplemental proposed rule does not
impose a significant additional burden
or additional costs.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s rule
pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded
that no additional consultation with
States, local governments, or their
representative is mandated beyond the
rulemaking process. The agency has
determined that the rulemaking would
not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation
with State and local officials or the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement. The rule would apply
to manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment and would not
have a substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 is not implicated and
consultation with State and local
officials is not required.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act. NHTSA is aware of the
November 12, 2024 decision in Marin
Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation
Administration, No. 23–1067 (D.C. Cir.
Nov. 12, 2024). To the extent that a
court may conclude that the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA are not
judicially enforceable or binding on this
agency action, NHTSA has nonetheless
elected to follow those regulations at 40
CFR parts 1500–1508, in addition to
DOT’s procedures/regulations
implementing NEPA at DOT NEPA
Order 5610.1C, to meet the agency’s
obligations under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42
U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order
5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that
33 See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table
of size standards, https://www.sba.gov/document/
support-table-size-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
this rule is categorically excluded
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4)
(planning and administrative activities,
such as promulgation of rules, that do
not involve or lead directly to
construction). This rule is not
anticipated to result in any
environmental impacts and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in
connection with this rulemaking.
This supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes revised
requirements for manufacturers to notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of
defects or noncompliances in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
The primary change proposed in this
rulemaking, which is required by
statute, requires manufacturers to
distribute through electronic means
certain safety recall information that
they are already required to distribute in
hard copy (by first class mail). The other
changes proposed in this rulemaking are
ministerial, such as updating the office
designation and web address for
NHTSA in NHTSA’s regulations.
Accordingly, this rule is not expected to
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. A person is
not required to respond to a collection
of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This
supplemental proposed rulemaking if
finalized would create new information
collection requirements under defect
and recall notification requirements. In
compliance with the PRA, NHTSA has
separately published a notice requesting
comment on NHTSA’s intention to
request approval to reinstate a
previously approved collection. For
additional details, see NHTSA’s most
recent 60-day notice.34
Agency: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR parts 573 and 577,
Defect and Noncompliance Notification.
Type of Request: Reinstatement with
modification of a previously approved
collection.
OMB Control Number: 2127–0004.
Form Number: The collection of this
information uses no standard form.
34 88
PO 00000
FR 73636 (Oct. 26, 2023).
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three (3) years from the date
of approval.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: 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. Chapter 301
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).
Description of the Need for the
Information and Use of the Information:
The information is needed for NHTSA
to better serve the public by monitoring
safety recalls and having consumers
provided timely recall information.
Owners and purchasers will benefit
from the increased ease with which they
can ascertain information on recalled
vehicles. The public at large will benefit
from a decrease in the numbers of
defective or noncompliant vehicles on
public roads—and the corresponding
decrease in injuries and fatalities
expected to result from increased recall
completion.
Affected Public: Should this proposal
be made final, it is expected that all
manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and
currently subject to defect and
noncompliance reporting and
notification requirements will be subject
to the updated requirements.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
NHTSA receives reports of defects or
noncompliances from roughly 240
distinct manufacturers per year.
Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that
there will be a total of 240 respondents
per year associated with this
supplemental proposed rule.
Frequency: As circumstances
necessitate.
Estimate of the Total Annual
Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of
Information: This supplemental
proposed rule requiring manufacturers
to notify affected owners and purchasers
of recalls by electronic means in
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
addition to first-class mail notifications
will add some paperwork burden to the
industry. In the NPRM, NHTSA
reasoned that electronic methods of
recall notification such as email, overthe-air communications, and use of
social-media accounts are existing
technologies and largely free of charge.
However, the agency did anticipate that
each recall would require 4 burden
hours for a manufacturer to plan its
strategy for meeting the electronic
notification requirement and executing
that strategy. With an estimated 854
recalls filed each year, NHTSA
estimated 3,416 burden hours (854
recalls × 4 hours) for this new
requirement.
TIA commented that it believed this
estimate was accurate. Alliance and
Global, however, disagreed that the
electronic methods of communication
are ‘‘largely free of charge,’’ stating radio
and television ‘‘can be very expensive
with limited ability to evaluate
effectiveness.’’ Alliance and Global,
citing costs incurred to pay vendors to
handle message preparation and
distribution, also commented that
‘‘[e]ven for internet-based electronic
communication such as text messaging
and emails, manufacturers will incur
substantial costs for acquiring contact
information for customers.’’ Alliance
and Global further noted that as contact
information for direct means of
electronic communication change,
manufacturers will incur additional
costs to keep that contact information
up-to-date, and expressed concern with
how NHTSA’s discretion to order
additional notifications may affect its
burden estimate that ‘‘assumes only one
electronic notification per recall.’’
Alliance and Global requested that
NHTSA identify various costs and
separately evaluate those costs with
respect to different industry sectors
(listing, in particular, light duty vehicle
manufacturers, heavy vehicle
manufacturers, child restraint
manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and
equipment manufacturers). Alliance and
Global also requested that OMB require
NHTSA develop a plan to evaluate
whether the rule would actually result
in increased participation rates
‘‘[b]ecause the true costs and benefits of
this proposal are unknown.’’ 35 Alliance
and Global further requested that
35 Alliance and Global stated that the cost per VIN
for emails and text messages ranges from $0.01 to
$0.20 per VIN from vendors, and that individuals
receiving certain notifications may also incur costs
(e.g., via text messaging, depending on the
individual’s wireless service plan), which it
commented that NHTSA should also evaluate.
However, Alliance and Global acknowledged that
set-up fees are not significant cost drivers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
NHTSA consider allowing recall
notifications exclusively through
electronic means ‘‘[i]n light of the high
cost of first-class mailings.’’
As an initial matter and in support of
the benefits of this proposal, since the
NPRM, NHTSA has engaged in several
years of oversight of the recalls of
Takata air bag inflators—the largest
automotive recall in U.S. history. Under
recommendations issued by the
Independent Monitor of Takata in
consultation with NHTSA, affected
vehicle manufacturers have been
conducting frequent outreach to affected
owners using various methods of nontraditional means, including electronic
means (e.g., text messages and email).36
Among other things, completion
percentages for recalls of the oldest
vehicles affected by these recalls
avoided a ‘‘leveling off’’ in completion
percentage typically observed for recall
campaigns involving vehicles 10 years
or older.37 NHTSA has also previously
pointed in other contexts to sources that
tend toward advocating greater
notification frequency to persuade
action, and the utility of frequent
outreach via multiple communications
methods is supported by available
information, including a report from the
U.S. Government Accountability
Office.38
For this supplemental proposed rule,
NHTSA is revising its pending burdenhours estimate to account for the
proposed requirement that
manufacturers submit to NHTSA an
electronic recall notification plan.
NHTSA anticipates each electronic
36 See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the
Coordinated Remedy Program, Coordinated
Communications Recommendations (Dec. 23,
2016), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
nhtsa.gov/files/documents/coordinated_
communications_recommendations_1.pdf.
37 See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the
Coordinated Remedy Program, The State of the
Takata Airbag Recalls (Nov. 15, 2017) at 66 fig.37,
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/
files/documents/2017-the_state_of_the_takata_
airbag_recalls.pdf.
38 See U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Auto Recalls: NHTSA Should Take Steps to Further
Improve the Usability of Its website (GAO–18–127)
(Dec. 4, 2017), at 10–11, 13–15 (indicating
articulated safety risk is the most influential factor
in owners’ decision to obtain repair, and that
owners have additional preference for receiving
recall notification by electronic means); 82 FR
45941 (Oct. 2, 2017); GM Safety Recalls:
Innovations in Customer Outreach (NHTSA
Retooling Recalls Workshop, April 28, 2015); Auto
Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings (Nov. 2015);
GM letter to NHTSA in comment to NPRM, Docket
No. NHTSA–2016–0001 (Mar. 23, 2016); Susanne
Schmidt & Martin Eisend, Advertising Repetition: A
Meta-Analysis on Effective Frequency in
Advertising, 44 J. Advertising 415, 425 (2015); Blair
Entenmann, Marketing Help!, The Principles of
Targeted Direct Mail Advertising (2007); Chuck
Flantroy, Direct Mail Works: The Power of
Frequency, Kessler Creative (Aug. 31, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1919
recall notification plan will take 24
hours to develop and submit to the
agency. With 240 distinct manufacturers
filing at least one part 573 report each
year, and an average of 24 hours to
develop and submit each electronic
recall notification plan, NHTSA
estimates that it will take manufacturers
1,152 hours annually to develop and
submit electronic recall notification
plans to NHTSA (24 hours × 240
distinct manufacturers × 1⁄5 [one plan
every five years]). For planning and
executing electronic recall notification
for each recall, NHTSA is reducing its
previous estimate in the NPRM of 4
burden hours to 2 burden hours to
account for efficiencies realized from
developing electronic recall notification
plans. With an estimated 976 recalls
filed each year, the agency estimates
1,952 burden hours (952 recalls × 2
hours) for manufacturers to plan and
execute their strategies for each recall to
meet the electronic recall notification
requirements. Accordingly, NHTSA
estimates a total of 3,104 annual burden
hours associated with this supplemental
proposed rule.
Estimated Total Annual Reporting
and Recording Burden Cost Resulting
from the Information Collection: To
calculate the labor cost associated with
developing and submitting the
electronic recall notification, NHTSA
looked at wage estimates for the type of
personnel involved with compiling and
submitting the documents. NHTSA
estimates the total labor costs associated
with these burden hours by looking at
the average wage for technical writers in
the motor vehicle manufacturing
industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) estimates that the average hourly
wage for technical writers (BLS
Occupation code #27–3042) in the
motor vehicle manufacturing industry is
$41.64.39 The Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that private industry workers’
wages represent 70.3% of total labor
compensation costs.40 Therefore,
NHTSA estimates the hourly labor costs
to be $59.23 for technical writers (BLS
Occupation code #27–3042) in the
motor vehicle manufacturing industry.
Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total
annual labor cost associated with the
3,104 total annual burden hours to be
$183,849.92 (3,104 hours × $59.23).
39 See May 2023 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
NAICS 336100—Motor Vehicle Manufacturing,
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/
naics4_336100.htm (accessed Dec. 5, 2024).
40 See Sept. 10, 2024 Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation Summary, available at https://
www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ecec.htm (accessed
Dec. 5, 2024).
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
1920
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
NHTSA appreciates the comments
that it received that address the cost of
the proposed rule and recognizes there
may be additional costs associated with
compliance not raised in the NPRM. At
this juncture, with the various revisions
and additions in this supplemental
proposed rule, the agency solicits
further comment on the associated costs
before further addressing the comments
it has already received on this issue.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspects of this
information collection, including (a)
whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) whether the
Department’s estimate for the burden of
information collection is accurate; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Please submit any comments,
identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this document to NHTSA and
OMB. Although comments may be
submitted during the entire comment
period, comments received within 30
days of publication are most useful.
NHTSA recognizes that the collection
of information contained in this
supplemental proposed rule may be
subject to revision in response to public
comments.
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal agencies
and departments shall use technical
standards that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, using such technical standards
as a means to carry out policy objectives
or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.’’ This proposed rule
would amend 49 CFR part 577 to update
the procedures by which manufacturers
notify owners and purchasers of defects
and noncompliances in an effort to
improve vehicle safety recall
completion, and does not involve any
voluntary consensus standards as it
relates to NHTSA or this rulemaking.
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
With respect to the review of the
promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996),
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies
the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation including all provisions
repealed, circumscribed, displaced,
impaired, or modified; (3) provides a
clear legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, while
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are
to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) adequately defines key
terms; and (7) addresses other important
issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. This
document is consistent with that
requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA has
considered these issues and determined
that this rule does not have any
retroactive or preemptive effect. The
rule only applies to procedures by
which manufacturers notify owners and
purchasers of defects and
noncompliances, with amendments as
to how that is done prospectively.
NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement associated with this rule
that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–4, requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the cost, benefits, and other effects of
proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually. Because this
rulemaking would not have a $100
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates
assessment will be prepared.
I. Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18,
2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1)
is determined to be economically
significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significantly
adverse effect on the supply of,
distribution of, or use of energy; or (2)
that is designated by the Administrator
of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant
energy action. This rulemaking is not
subject to E.O. 13211.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in the spring and fall of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
K. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn’t clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraph) make the rule easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please write to us with your
views.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577
Administrative practice and
procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Regulatory Text
For the reasons set forth above,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part
577 as follows:
PART 577–DEFECT AND
NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 577
continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116–
121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
2. Amend § 577.5 by:
a. revising the first, fifth, sixth, and
eighth sentences of paragraph (a),;
■ b. revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b);
■ c. revising paragraph (c)(2); and
■ d. revising paragraph (g)(1)(vii).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 577.5 Notification pursuant to a
manufacturer’s decision.
(a) When a manufacturer of motor
vehicles or replacement equipment
determines that any motor vehicle or
item of equipment produced by the
manufacturer contains a defect that
relates to motor vehicle safety, or does
not comply with an applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard, or the
manufacturer files a defect or
noncompliance information report
under 49 CFR part 573, the
manufacturer shall provide notification
in accordance with § 577.7(a), unless the
manufacturer is exempted by the
Administrator (pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such
notification. * * * Except as authorized
by the Administrator, the manufacturer
shall submit a copy of its proposed
owner notification letter and, for recalls
filed January 12, 2026 or later,
notification by electronic means,
including any provisions or attachments
related to reimbursement, to NHTSA’s
Recall Management Division (NEF–107)
through the online Manufacturers Recall
Portal no fewer than five (5) Federal
Government business days before it
intends to begin sending the
notifications to owners. The
manufacturer shall mark the outside of
each envelope in which it sends an
owner notification letter with a notation
that includes the phrase ‘‘URGENT
SAFETY RECALL,’’ all in capital letters
and in a type that is larger than that
used in the address section, and is also
distinguishable from the other type in a
manner other than size. * * * Except
where the format of the envelope has
been previously approved by NHTSA’s
Recall Management Division (NEF–107),
each manufacturer must submit the
envelope format it intends to use to that
division through the online
Manufacturers Recall Portal at least five
(5) Federal Government business days
before mailing the notification to
owners. * * *
(b) At the top of the notification, there
must be the statement ‘‘URGENT
SAFETY RECALL,’’ in all capital letters
and in a type size that is larger than that
used in the remainder of the letter.
* * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
(c) * * *
(2) ‘‘(Manufacturer’s name or
division) has decided that (identified
motor vehicles, in the case of
notification sent by a motor vehicle
manufacturer; identified equipment, in
the case of notification sent by a
replacement equipment manufacturer)
does not comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. (number
and title of standard).’’
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) A statement informing the owner
that he or she may submit a complaint
to the Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590;
or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety
Hotline at 1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–
800–424–9153); or go to https://
www.nhtsa.gov, if the owner believes
that:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 577.7 by revising
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 577.7
Time and manner of notification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) In the case of a notification
required to be sent by a motor vehicle
manufacturer, by first-class mail and by
electronic means, to each person who is
registered under State law as the owner
of the vehicle and whose name, address,
and contact information for notification
by electronic means are reasonably
ascertainable by the manufacturer
through State records or other sources
available to it. If, in the case of
notification by electronic means, the
owner cannot be reasonably ascertained,
the manufacturer shall notify the most
recent purchaser known to the
manufacturer. For first-class mail and
electronic notifications, the
manufacturer shall also provide
notification to each lessee of a leased
motor vehicle that is covered by an
agreement between the manufacturer
and a lessor under which the
manufacturer is to notify lessees directly
of safety-related defects and
noncompliances.
(ii) In the case of a notification
required to be sent by a replacement
equipment manufacturer—
(A) By first-class mail and by
electronic means to the most recent
purchaser known to the manufacturer,
and
(B) (Except in the case of a tire) if
decided by the Administrator to be
required for motor vehicle safety, by
public notice in such manner as the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1921
Administrator may require after
consultation with the manufacturer.
(iii) In the case of a manufacturer
required to provide notification
concerning any defective or
noncomplying tire, by first-class or
certified mail and by electronic means.
(iv) In the case of a notification to be
sent by a lessor to a lessee of a leased
motor vehicle, by first-class mail and by
electronic means to the most recent
lessee known to the lessor. Such
notification shall be sent within ten
days of the lessor’s receipt of the
notification from the vehicle
manufacturer.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Notification by electronic means as
required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section and as described in this
paragraph (e) applies to recalls filed
January 12, 2026 or later, and includes
notification by any of the following:
electronic mail, text message, radio or
television notification, in-vehicle
notification, social media or targeted
online campaign, telephone call
(automated or otherwise), or other
similar electronic means.
(1) Requirements of notification by
electronic means. (i) All reasonable
efforts shall be made to transmit
notification by electronic means through
contact information specific to each
individual owner, purchaser, and lessee.
Where any owner, purchaser, or lessee
cannot be notified in this manner,
additional notification by other
electronic means shall be issued that is
reasonably calculated to reach such
owners, purchasers, and lessees.
(ii) Notification by electronic means
must not be inconsistent with the notice
required under 49 U.S.C. 30119. For any
chosen electronic means of notification,
where it is practical and can be
included in a manner consistent with
this part, the notification must include
an internet hyperlink to a notice that
complies with the content requirements
of § 577.5(b) through (g), or provide an
internet hyperlink to a representative
copy of a notice that complies with the
content requirements of § 577.5(b)
through (g) along with instructions for
how the owner, purchaser, or lessee can
determine whether his or her vehicle or
equipment is impacted.
(iii) In the case of a notification by
electronic means that is not transmitted
through contact information specific to
an individual owner, purchaser, or
lessee, manufacturers who are subject to
the requirements in § 573.15 to provide
recall information searchable by vehicle
identification number (VIN) must direct
people in that notification to NHTSA’s
VIN search tool or the manufacturer’s
VIN search tool.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
1922
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules
(2) Administrator discretion. The
Administrator retains the discretion to
require other electronic means and
additional notifications if a
manufacturer’s chosen means is
impractical, does not feasibly reach all
affected owners, purchasers, or lessees,
or is otherwise deemed inappropriate.
(3) Electronic recall notification plans.
(i) At least once every five (5) years
manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA’s
Recall Management Division (NEF–107),
through the online Manufacturers Recall
Portal, a plan for the notification of
owners, purchasers, and lessees of
recalls by electronic means. This plan
must describe the means of electronic
notification that the manufacturer
anticipates utilizing for its recalls and
how the manufacturer will evaluate the
selection of the electronic means
utilized for a recall, including an
explanation of any preferences for the
use of certain electronic means.
(ii) A manufacturer’s electronic recall
notifications issued under this section
must be consistent with its electronic
recall notification plan unless the
manufacturer notifies NHTSA no fewer
than ten (10) Federal Government
business days before the anticipated
issuance of any notification by
electronic means that would be
inconsistent with its electronic recall
notification plan, with an accompanying
explanation for the inconsistency.
■ 4. Amend § 577.10 by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 577.10
Follow-up notification.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) A follow-up notification sent by
first-class mail or by electronic means
shall be sent in conformance with the
requirements of § 577.7 of this part.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part, the Administrator may
authorize the use of other means besides
first-class mail and electronic means for
a follow-up notification.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Issued in Washington, DC, under
authority delegated pursuant to 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024–31011 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060;
FXFR13360900000–245–FF09F14000]
RIN 1018–BH15
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Two
Freshwater Mussel Genera and One
Crayfish Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) proposes to add all
species of freshwater mussels from two
genera, Asian pond mussels
(Sinanodonta species) and golden
mussels (Limnoperna species), to the
list of injurious mollusks. Additionally,
the Service proposes to add marbled
crayfish (Procambarus virginalis) to the
list of injurious crustaceans. Listing
these taxa as injurious will prohibit the
importation of any live animal, larvae,
viable egg, or hybrid of these taxa into
the United States, except as specifically
authorized. These listings would also
prohibit shipment of any live animal,
larvae, viable egg, or hybrid of these
species between the continental United
States, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
territory or possession of the United
States, except as specifically authorized.
The action is necessary to protect
wildlife and wildlife resources by
preventing the introduction and
subsequent establishment of these
foreign aquatic invertebrates into
ecosystems of the United States.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
March 11, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060, which
is the docket number for this proposed
rule. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by one of the methods described
above. We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov, meaning
that we will generally post any personal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information you provide (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information). This proposed rule and all
supporting documentation, including
the environmental action statement and
references cited in this proposed rule,
are available on https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Sommers, Injurious Wildlife
Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Branch of Aquatic
Invasive Species; MS: FAC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803; by telephone at 571–329–2214.
Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point of
contact in the United States. Please see
Docket No. FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060
on https://www.regulations.gov for a
document that summarizes this
proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) proposes to add the genus of
Asian pond mussels (Sinanodonta), the
genus of golden mussels (Limnoperna),
and the marbled crayfish (Procambarus
virginalis) to the list of injurious
wildlife in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 16.13 (50
CFR 16.13). This action would prohibit
these genera and species from being
imported into the United States and
shipped between the continental United
States, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
territory or possession of the United
States, except as specifically authorized.
The purpose of listing all species from
two freshwater mussel genera and one
crayfish species is to protect U.S.
interests and natural resources by
preventing introduction of these
injurious aquatic invertebrates into
ecosystems of the United States. The
final rule may confirm individual, some,
or all proposed species for listing as
injurious.
Based on current taxonomic
classification, there are 26 species in the
Sinanodonta genus, 1 species in the
Limnoperna genus, and the marbled
crayfish (Procambarus virginalis) that
we are proposing for listing as injurious
under 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) (the injurious
wildlife listing provision of the Lacey
Act). These taxa share various generic
E:\FR\FM\10JAP1.SGM
10JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1909-1922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 577
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001]
RIN 2127-AL66
Updated Means of Providing Recall Notification
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act), NHTSA is proposing to amend the means of required
recall notification to include notification by electronic means, in
addition to first-class mail, and proposing certain other attendant
obligations related to this requirement. NHTSA is also proposing to
revise certain language that is currently required for recall
notifications, as well as to update certain language in the regulation
and the office designation for NHTSA's Recall Management Division and
NHTSA's web address.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2025. In
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on a previously approved collection. See the Paperwork
Reduction Act section under Regulatory Notices and Analyses below.
Please submit all comments relating to the information collection
requirements to NHTSA and the Office of
[[Page 1910]]
Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section on or before March 11, 2025. Comments to OMB are most useful if
submitted within 30 days of publication.
Proposed compliance date: NHTSA proposes to make the electronic
notification requirements in this proposed rule applicable to recalls
filed one year or later following publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Early compliance is permitted but optional. NHTSA
proposes to make compliance with all other requirements in this
proposed rule be required as of the effective date of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Internet: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Facsimile: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please include the
docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at (202) 366-9322.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
Privacy Act: Except as provided below, all comments received into
the docket will be made public in their entirety. The comments will be
searchable by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You should not include information in
your comment that you do not want to be made public. You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Alexander Ansley, Chief, Recall Management Division, at (202) 493-0481.
For legal issues, you may contact Stephen Hench, Office of the Chief
Counsel, at (202) 366-5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and the
FAST Act
B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA's
Responses
A. NHTSA's Authority and Scope of the Rule
B. Electronic Notification Requirements
1. Means of Required Electronic Notification
2. Content of Required Electronic Notification
3. Additional and Follow-Up Notification Requirements
C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles Built Prior to the
Compliance Date, and Lead Time
IV. Proposed Changes To Recall Notification Requirements
V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part 577
A. Language in Recall Notifications
B. Updated Office and Website Designations
C. Language Regarding FMVSS Noncompliances
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, 14094, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
D. National Environmental Policy Act
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Executive Order 13211
J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
K. Privacy Act
L. Plain Language
I. Executive Summary
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
to amend the means by which a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment provides recall notification to owners, purchasers,
and dealers that a vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to
motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).\1\ MAP-21 also authorized NHTSA
to order additional follow-up recall notifications if a second
notification does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or
equipment being returned for remedy.\2\ Congress later enacted the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which mandated
NHTSA amend 49 CFR part 577 to require the issuance of recall
notifications to owners and purchasers by electronic means, in addition
to first-class mail.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 771 (2012).
\2\ Id.
\3\ Public Law 114-94, 24104, 129 Stat. 1703 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2016, NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments and supporting information about
how the agency may update the means manufacturers must utilize to
effectively notify owners and purchasers of a recall (whether as a
first notification or as a follow-up notification).\4\ On September 2,
2016, after consideration of comments received in response to the
ANPRM, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to
amend 49 CFR part 577 to require that manufacturers issue recall
notifications to affected owners, purchasers, and lessees by electronic
means in addition to first-class mail, as well as require that follow-
up recall notifications be issued by electronic means, in addition to
first-class mail.\5\ For simplicity in the preamble of this proposed
rule, ``owners'' includes lessees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 81 FR 4007 (Jan. 25, 2016).
\5\ 81 FR 60332 (Sept. 1, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After further consideration, including a review of the comments
received in response to the NPRM and based on additional learnings--
including knowledge acquired through the ongoing oversight of the
Takata recalls, where manufacturers commonly use electronic forms of
recall notification--NHTSA is issuing this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). NHTSA believes that this supplemental
proposal will better ensure electronic recall notifications reach and
provide effective notice to owners and purchasers. Effective recall
notifications are critical to ensuring that as many vehicles and items
of equipment as possible are remedied, addressing the safety risk of a
defect or noncompliance.\6\ In this SNPRM, NHTSA again proposes to
amend 49 CFR part 577 to require that manufacturers issue recall
notifications to affected owners and purchasers by electronic means in
addition to first-class mail. This multi-channel, multi-touch approach
helps to effectively communicate a recall and motivate completion.\7\
The increasing use of electronic recall communications and the agency's
greater understanding of
[[Page 1911]]
potential data sources supporting such communications over the last
several years has informed this supplemental proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Tips for Increasing Recall Completion Rates,'' https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completion-rates.
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After further consideration, NHTSA believes certain meaningful
changes to its prior proposal are warranted and invites comment on such
changes. One of the primary revisions from the NPRM is what is now a
two-tiered approach to issuing electronic recall notification. This
approach first requires all reasonable efforts to send electronic
notification through contact information specific to each owner and
purchaser. Then, if electronic notification cannot be sent in that
manner, the electronic notification must be issued by other electronic
means reasonably calculated to reach the owners and purchasers who
could not be reached through individual contact information. The main
purpose of this approach is to promote the use of notifications that
are most likely to reach and persuade owners and purchasers. Such
notifications are, in the agency's experience--including from working
with over a dozen vehicle manufacturers issuing numerous communications
to owners in the Takata recalls--direct communications to the specific
consumer.
Other revisions from the NPRM include increased flexibility with
respect to the content of the electronic notification, and an added
requirement that manufacturers submit to the agency electronic
notification plans that describe anticipated approaches to electronic
recall notification.
NHTSA is also proposing several revisions to 49 CFR part 577 that
are not specific to recall notification by electronic means. One
proposed revision is to the language required on the outside of each
envelope containing an owner notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(a)
and at the top of the owner notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(b),
which NHTSA is proposing to change from ``SAFETY RECALL NOTICE'' and
``IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL'' (respectively) to ``URGENT SAFETY RECALL''
in both locations. A second proposed revision is to language in 49 CFR
577.5 that currently refers to a ``failure to conform'' and products
that ``fail to conform'' to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standard. The proposed revisions read instead ``does not comply with,''
which is more in alignment with the statutory language and ordinary
usage in this context. NHTSA is also proposing to update the website to
which owners are to be directed for recall notifications--changing
``https://www.safercar.gov'' to ``https://www.nhtsa.gov''--and two
revisions to update the office designation for NHTSA's Recall
Management Division (changing ``NVS-215'' to ``NEF-107'').
The agency invites public comment on its additional proposed
revisions to part 577.
II. Background and Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and the FAST Act
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety
Act), 49 U.S.C. 30118(c), requires that, in the event of a safety
defect or noncompliance with an applicable FMVSS in a motor vehicle or
replacement equipment, manufacturers must notify owners, purchasers,
and dealers of the vehicle or equipment pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. 49
U.S.C. 30119(d) governs how this notice is given. Prior to MAP-21, for
recalls of vehicles, Section 30119(d) required notice to be sent by
first-class mail to the registered owner or, if the registered owner
could not be identified, to the most recent purchaser known to the
manufacturer.\8\ For recalls of replacement equipment, the statute
required notification by first-class mail to the most recent
purchaser.\9\ Manufacturers were also required to notify dealers under
the statute ``by certified mail or quicker means if available.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B) (as effective to September 30,
2012).
\9\ Id. Replacement equipment includes, e.g., motorcycle helmets
and child restraint systems. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) (providing
that for purposes of, inter alia, 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121,
``replacement equipment'' is motor vehicle equipment that is not
original equipment); id. sec. 30102(b)(1)(C) (defining original
equipment as that which is installed on a motor vehicle at the time
of delivery to the first purchaser); see also 49 CFR 573.4 (similar
definitions).
\10\ Id. at 30119(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in
49 U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary, and by delegation NHTSA's
Administrator,\11\ the flexibility to determine the manner by which
notifications of recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent. The
amended statutory language permitted the agency to engage in a
rulemaking to require notification by means other than (or in addition
to) first-class mail to owners and purchasers of vehicles or equipment
subject to safety recalls. In 2015, the FAST Act expounded on this
authority by specifically mandating the agency amend 49 CFR 577.7 to
include the issuance of recall notifications by electronic means in
addition to notification by first-class mail.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NHTSA is delegated authority by the Secretary of
Transportation to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United
States Code. 49 CFR 501.2.
\12\ Notification to dealers and distributors is generally
required to be sent ``by certified mail, verifiable or electronic
means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite
distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable
means.'' 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and distributors are not
notified by first-class mail. Therefore, the FAST Act did not
require the agency to change the means of notification for dealers
and distributors, and NHTSA is not doing so here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While 49 U.S.C. 30119 previously authorized the Secretary to order
a second recall notification if the Secretary determined that the first
notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles
or items of equipment being returned for remedy, the statute was silent
as to notifications beyond this second notification. Section 31310 of
MAP-21 clarified this issue by amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now,
under 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order
additional notifications if the Secretary determines that a second
notification also failed to result in an adequate number of motor
vehicles or items of equipment being returned for remedy.
B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the NPRM issued in September 2016, NHTSA proposed amending 49
CFR 577.7 to require that manufacturers issue recall notifications by
electronic means, in addition to first-class mail, each time a recall
notification is required.\13\ The agency proposed that ``electronic
means'' include ``electronic mail, text messages, radio, or television
notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air
alerts, social media or targeted online campaigns, phone calls,
including automated phone calls, or other real time means.'' The
proposal would have permitted, without further direction, manufacturer
discretion to select the electronic means. NHTSA also proposed
retaining agency discretion to require manufacturers to issue
additional recall notifications by other electronic means if a
manufacturer's chosen means was impractical, did not feasibly reach all
of the impacted purchasers or owners, or the agency otherwise deemed
the means inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ NHTSA issued an ANRPM on January 25, 2016. That ANRPM is
summarized in the NPRM. 81 FR 4007 (ANPRM); 81 FR 60332 (NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA further proposed to require that: electronic recall
notifications comply with the content requirements in 49 CFR part 577;
electronic recall notifications provide a hyperlink to a notice that
complies with those requirements, or the manufacturer
[[Page 1912]]
provide a representative copy of such a notice along with instructions
on how an owner can determine whether a vehicle or an item of equipment
is impacted; and the electronic recall notification direct recipients
to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the manufacturer's search tool.\14\
NHTSA also proposed amending 49 CFR 577.10, consistent with the above,
to clarify that where NHTSA requires follow-up recall notifications,
those notifications must be issued by electronic means, in addition to
first-class mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Under 49 CFR 573.15, ``[m]anufacturers that have
manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or
delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into
the United States 25,000 or more light vehicles, or 5,000 or more
motorcycles in the current calendar year or prior calendar year''
are required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based
safety recall search tools on its website pursuant to existing
regulation. NHTSA's VIN search tool is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA invited comment on these and any alternative proposals that
would allow manufacturers numerous options for issuing electronic
recall notification while ensuring the communication of the traditional
components of part 577 first-class mailings. NHTSA specifically
requested comment on its proposals to: permit manufacturer discretion
as to the means chosen to issue electronic notifications; the agency's
proposed definition of ``electronic means'' and whether further
definition of the term ``social media or targeted online campaigns''
was needed; the agency's proposal to require manufacturers required to
support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall
search tools on their websites to include in their electronic
notifications directions to those tools; and the agency's clarification
that follow-up notifications must be issued by, in addition to first-
class mail, electronic means consistent with the rule.
III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA's
Responses
NHTSA received comments from fourteen commenters on its NPRM: Jeff
Burton (commenting as an individual); School Bus Manufacturers
Technical Council (SBMTC); SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. (SafetyBeltSafe);
Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson); National School
Transportation Association (NSTA); Cummins, Inc. (Cummins); Advocates
for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates); IHS Automotive (IHS); Tire
Industry Association (TIA); Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA);
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA); National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA); and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
Inc. and Association of Global Automakers, Inc., which submitted joint
comments (Alliance and Global). All comments were reviewed and
considered, and to the extent relevant to this supplemental proposal
are discussed in this section by subject matter.
A. NHTSA's Authority and Scope of the Rule
Alliance and Global commented that Congress only intended the FAST
Act to authorize the issuance of recall notifications using electronic
means in certain recalls--not to require the use of electronic means
for all recalls. Several commenters also expressed concern that the
rule might conflict with certain Federal laws such as the Controlling
the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM
Act), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act. NADA and Alliance and Global requested that NHTSA
obtain acknowledgement from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that notifications issued under the
rule would be permitted under those laws.
NHTSA disagrees with the interpretation from Alliance and Global.
The FAST Act specifically provides that ``the Secretary shall prescribe
a final rule revising the regulations under [49 CFR 577.7] to include
notification by electronic means in addition to notification by first-
class mail.'' \15\ This language mandates a change so that electronic
notifications are included in the regulation with the same force as
first-class mail notifications and to apply to all recalls, as first-
class mail notification currently does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Public Law 114-94, 24104(a)(1) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the concerns pertaining to potential conflict with Federal
laws, NHTSA reiterates that this rule is legally mandated, and based on
the agency's analysis and judgment, NHTSA has determined that this
supplemental proposed rule will not conflict with these laws; recall
notifications are safety-related informational messages. For many years
manufacturers have been using electronic means of recall notification
as a supplement to their required mailed notices, and NHTSA is unaware
of the FCC or FTC taking any adverse action against entities issuing
such electronic notifications. Indeed, IHS commented that manufacturers
are already providing notifications via channels other than first-class
mail, and Alliance and Global acknowledged in their comments that in
recent recalls many of its members have used various electronic means
of recall notification.
B. Electronic Notification Requirements
As a general matter, comments were supportive of the proposed rule,
particularly for its potential to increase the reach of recall
notifications and the flexibility it would afford manufacturers by
allowing them to choose the electronic means best suited to a recall.
Many critical comments centered on the specific means of electronic
notification proposed, and the specific content proposed for those
notifications. Comments were also fairly extensive on additional and
follow-up notifications under the proposal.
1. Means of Required Electronic Notification
Comments on this topic included IHS's request that the regulations
be drafted broadly ``so as not to limit the means of providing notice
which may not be contemplated today.'' Advocates commented that NHTSA
should require manufacturers to issue electronic notifications both
directly to individuals (e.g., through email), as well as issue more
general notifications (e.g., through social-media campaigns), while
Alliance and Global commented that they do not believe that every
recall should require both first-class mail and electronic
notification. RMA observed that tire manufacturers do not receive
electronic contact information from tire purchasers as part of the tire
registration process, and so it ``strongly supports the flexibility''
for manufacturers to choose the electronic means they use to provide
notification under the proposed rule. TIA expressed concern with
collecting email addresses at the point of sale, and requested NHTSA
study and consider establishing a third-party data depository.\16\
Harley-Davidson, agreeing with the flexibility of the rule, suggested
adding language to clarify that multiple, different means of electronic
notification may be used in a single recall to reach owners and
purchasers. Alliance and Global requested clarification of the meaning
of ``other media,'' as included in the proposal, given that the
proposed rule would require electronic recall communication. Cummins
requested the final rule allow multiple manufacturers
[[Page 1913]]
involved in the same recall to issue electronic recall notifications on
behalf of one another to collectively satisfy their obligations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ TIA also submitted extensive comment on its support for a
TIN to VIN system. While NHTSA recognizes there may be benefits to
such a system that, among other things, may make electronic recall
notification ``easier,'' the potential creation of such a system is
beyond the scope of this proposed rule.
\17\ For example, Manufacturers A and B could agree that
Manufacturer A will issue email notifications on behalf of both
manufacturers, and Manufacturer B will issue a radio campaign and
first-class mail notifications on behalf of both manufacturers--
thereby satisfying, through electronic mail, radio, and first-class
mail, both Manufacturer A's and B's obligations under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained further below, NHTSA is proposing to require that
manufacturers issue both electronic and first-class mail recall
notifications for every recall, but is modifying the rule previously
proposed in the NPRM with a two-tiered approach to targeting recipients
of the notification. Specifically, the proposed rule would require that
manufacturers use all reasonable efforts to issue electronic recall
notifications through contact information specific to each individual
owner and purchaser. If not every affected owner and purchaser can be
reached through such notification (e.g., because relevant contact
information is unavailable), then manufacturers must issue additional
electronic notification reasonably calculated to reach those who are
unreachable through contact information specific to them (i.e., more
general forms of notification, such as radio or social media
campaigns). NHTSA believes this approach best promotes the use of
electronic notifications that are most likely to reach affected owners
and purchasers and improve recall participation, while at the same time
mitigates costs to manufacturers where all individual owners and
purchasers can otherwise be notified directly through electronic means.
Accordingly, under the proposed rule, manufacturers may, and likely
often will, issue electronic notifications by multiple means to address
a single recall and are not required to use one specific means. NHTSA
intends the proposed rule to allow for multiple electronic means and
recognizes Harley-Davidson's comment to add clearer language to this
effect, although the agency believes that the relevant provision's
definition that ``include[s] notification by any of the following''
electronic means is sufficient.\18\ NHTSA also believes it has
sufficiently afforded manufacturers the flexibility to choose the
electronic means by which they issue recall notifications in the
proposed rule--including means, as IHS commented, that ``may not be
contemplated today''--by providing an extensive but non-exhaustive list
of potential electronic means of notification in the proposed rule. In
the same vein, the proposed rule does not attempt to further define,
nor in any particular way limit, ``social media or targeted online
campaigns,'' which should alleviate concern that further definition of
that term could ``constrain innovation in the recall communication
space.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Such a framework--allowing for a combination of multiple
electronic means as needed to notify consumers--should also address
TIA's concern about collecting one specific type of contact
information (email addresses) at the point of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In further alignment with the proposed rule's flexibility, NHTSA
declines to limit ``traditional broadcast methods such as print media,
radio and television'' to only ``rare . . . significant, large-scale
recall[s],'' as RMA requested in its comments. NHTSA emphasizes that
manufacturers must evaluate the circumstances of any particular recall
on a case-by-case basis and does not wish to prospectively limit--or,
conversely, direct--the potential use of certain electronic means of
notification. As explained above, to improve recall participation while
at the same time mitigate costs to manufacturers, the proposed rule
requires all reasonable efforts to issue electronic notification using
contact information specific to individual owners and purchasers, and
where such notification is not feasible, additional means of
notification (such as, perhaps, some of the ``traditional broadcast
methods'' RMA references) are required.
NHTSA also declines in this proposed rule to allow, as suggested by
Cummins, multiple manufacturers involved in the same recall to issue
electronic recall notifications on behalf of one another to
collectively satisfy their electronic-notification obligations. NHTSA
certainly encourages manufacturers to share recall-related knowledge,
information, and best practices with one another. However, NHTSA
believes that requiring each manufacturer to independently satisfy the
notification requirements in the proposed rule is preferable to a
``divide-and-conquer'' approach--even where a manufacturer's
notifications may overlap with those of another involved
manufacturer.\19\ NHTSA encourages coordination among manufacturers to
effectively address recalls, although NHTSA believes that the overall
effectiveness of the rule is best advanced by each manufacturer meeting
the requirements on an individual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ While NHTSA acknowledges Cummins's concern that certain
contact information may be limited for some manufacturers, the
agency believes that with the numerous electronic means available--
including but not limited to those referenced in the rule--even in
such circumstances manufacturers will be able to independently
satisfy their obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, a greater number of recall notifications issued through a
greater variety of means should generally increase recall participation
and the likelihood that notification will ultimately reach all affected
owners and purchasers.\20\ If manufacturers were permitted to satisfy
their obligations through other manufacturers' notifications, recalls
would involve fewer notifications issued through fewer means--which
could have the opposite effect. Furthermore, manufacturers recurrently
involved with one another in the same recalls could, over time, become
dependent on each other to issue notifications by certain electronic
means, which could negatively impact the efficacy and development of
electronic notifications in future recalls. Specifically, allowing
manufacturers to issue electronic notifications on behalf of one
another could discourage manufacturers to, as each recall arises,
independently revisit and evaluate their own universe of available
electronic means (and the effectiveness thereof). Without the onus on
each manufacturer to reach its affected owners and purchasers,
manufacturers are unlikely to improve their approaches to electronic
recall notification, e.g., through the gathering of additional
electronic contact information, or exploring additional means that may
be more effective. Such improvements may be critical to reaching
affected owners and purchasers in recalls that do not involve multiple
manufacturers accustomed to issuing notifications on one other's
behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Although perhaps some affected owners and purchasers will
be unmotivated to participate regardless of the nature and number of
notifications they receive, based on the agency's experience,
analysis, and judgment, the increased dissemination of recall
information far outweighs this potential shortcoming. See generally
82 FR 60789, 60793-94 (Dec. 22, 2017) (explaining, in discussion
about the Takata air bag inflator recalls, how available information
supports notion that frequent outreach via multiple communications
methods is effective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be reiterated from the NPRM that this supplemental
proposed rule neither amends, nor alters, a manufacturer's obligations
under 49 CFR part 573. Manufacturers must continue to comply with 49
CFR 573.6 by filing representative copies of ``all notices, bulletins,
and other communications that relate directly to the defect or
noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, or purchaser.'' Electronic notifications are notices,
bulletins, or other communications
[[Page 1914]]
under 49 CFR 573.6. Currently, manufacturers provide representative
copies to NHTSA via the online Recalls Portal. Under this proposed
rule, manufacturers will continue to do so for required electronic
notification, as the online Recalls Portal will be updated to allow for
manufacturers to select an applicable electronic means of notification.
Representative copies of notification are required even if a
manufacturer chooses to issue notices via electronic means such as
radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console
message, over-the-air alerts, telephone calls, or other means.
Recognizing the potentially large file sizes of some such
notifications, however (e.g., videos), NHTSA encourages manufacturers
to submit representative copies of electronic notifications to the
online Recalls Portal in a file format or manner with minimal storage
requirements. Manufacturers may submit, for example, hyperlinks to the
notification, screenshots of messages or alerts, or scripts of calls or
other radio messages.
This supplemental proposed rule requires recall notification by
both electronic means and first-class mail for every recall, but not
necessarily for every instance of notification for that recall. In
short, a manufacturer must provide electronic notification for both the
initial ``interim'' (if necessary, where a remedy is unavailable at the
time of notification) and ``final'' recall notifications.\21\ As
described above, the agency believes this requirement will increase the
likelihood that notification will ultimately reach all affected owners
and purchasers and increase recall participation. However, while the
Administrator may require follow-up notifications under 49 CFR 577.10,
this proposed rule does not require those notifications always be by
both first-class mail and electronic means.\22\ To clarify, NHTSA is
proposing to add language relating to electronic means of notification
to 49 CFR 577.10(g) to ensure that follow-up electronic notifications
issued under that section conform to the requirements for electronic
notifications that are in this supplemental proposed rule. NHTSA also
confirms that this supplemental proposed rule requiring notification by
electronic means does not apply to voluntary follow-up recall
notifications, although the agency encourages manufacturers to issue
notifications by the means most likely to reach and motivate affected
owners and purchasers. In addition, to address the request from
Alliance and Global to clarify the meaning of ``other media'' under 49
CFR 577.10(g), that term may include, for example, various forms of
print media other than first-class mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Manufacturers must issue a recall notification no later
than 60 days from the date they file a defect or noncompliance
information report, and where a remedy is unavailable at the time of
that notification, manufacturers must also issue a second
notification within a reasonable time (and in accordance with part
577) once a remedy becomes available. 49 CFR 577.7(a)(1).
\22\ The current regulation provides, in part, that ``[t]he
scope, timing, form, and content of such follow-up notification will
be established by the Administrator, in consultation with the
manufacturer.'' 49 CFR 577.10(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Content of Required Electronic Notification
As to the content required in notifications, IHS observed that the
proposed rule would require that electronic recall notifications
contain, in addition to any applicable references to VIN search tools,
all the content that must be included in first-class mail notifications
under 49 CFR 577.5. Alliance and Global and IHS questioned the value of
such content because if the first-class mail notification did not
result in recall completion, electronic notification containing the
same language would be unlikely to yield a different result. Alliance
and Global, while not ``objecting'' to the notion, suggested that there
could be value in not requiring manufacturers to direct viewers to VIN
search tools in broad electronic notification--and instead allowing
manufacturers more flexibility in determining the content of such
notifications. IHS further hypothesized a potential unintended
consequence of the rule's content requirement: limiting the electronic
means used because the extent of the required content may render some
electronic notifications ``unintelligible.'' Toyota observed that
requiring all the text in 577 would be difficult for in-vehicle recall
messages, because owners would need to scroll to view the entire
message and may be dissuaded from reading them. Toyota noted it would
be more effective if messages in this format were ``short and to the
point.''
The NPRM did allow for providing, in lieu of the content of the
first-class mail notice on the face of the electronic notification, an
internet hyperlink to that content (or a representative copy of a
notice with that content). However, this supplemental proposed rule is
more flexible, requiring that the content in electronic notification
must not be ``inconsistent'' with 49 U.S.C. 30119 (as opposed to
requiring compliance with 49 CFR 577.7),\23\ and requiring an internet
hyperlink to a representative copy of the first-class mail notice only
``where practical and can be included in a manner consistent with the
purpose of [49 CFR part 577].'' Such an approach should alleviate
concerns about the redundancy and/or unintelligibility of electronic
notifications. However, consistent with its recent experience and
learnings in the recall space, NHTSA also believes that, in some cases,
language from a first-class mail notice might have a different effect
on an owner or purchaser when the means of delivery is electronic--even
if the first-class mail notice did not motivate the owner or purchaser
to obtain a remedy.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Note the proposed approach still requires adherence to 49
CFR 577.8 (generally prohibiting the inclusion of disclaimers).
\24\ See generally Tips for Increasing Recall Completion Rates,
NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completion-rates (last visited Nov. 8, 2024) (noting multi-
channel outreach, including forms of electronic communication); The
Independent Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated Remedy Program,
Update on the State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (Jan. 23, 2020) at
8, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls-012320-tag.pdf (observing escalation of outreach communications, both in
frequency and in type, ``has proven successful to engage previously
unresponsive affected vehicle owners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to Alliance and Global's comments questioning the value of
directing recipients to VIN search tools, NHTSA considers such
information vital to improving recall participation. Moreover, this
content requirement is minimally burdensome and does not, in the
agency's view, substantially hinder a manufacturer's ability to, as
Alliance and Global state, ``design electronic notifications that might
appeal to hard-to-reach populations.'' The requirement also provides
substantive consistency between the first-class mail notice and the
electronic notice such that owners are more likely to associate the
notices with one another, thereby reinforcing their authority and
credibility. NHTSA is, however, revising its proposal to only require
that owners be directed to either NHTSA's or the manufacturer's VIN
search tool (not both).
3. Additional and Follow-Up Notification Requirements
Alliance and Global requested that NHTSA justify why manufacturers
must issue every recall notification (including follow-up
notifications) by both electronic means and first-class mail. Alliance
and Global also requested confirmation that the proposed rule's
electronic-notification requirement would apply only to notifications
issued
[[Page 1915]]
pursuant to regulations--i.e., not to voluntary follow-up
notifications. As explained above, while the Administrator may require
follow-up notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, this proposed rule does
not require those notifications always be by both first-class mail and
electronic means, and this was not NHTSA's intent in the NPRM. Follow-
up electronic notifications that are issued under that section would
need to conform to the requirements for electronic notifications that
are in this supplemental proposed rule. Notification by electronic
means is also not required for voluntary follow-up recall
notifications, although the agency encourages manufacturers to issue
notifications by the means most likely to reach and motivate affected
owners and purchasers.
EMA, Alliance and Global, and Harley-Davidson also commented on
NHTSA's discretion to require manufacturers to issue additional
notification by other electronic means where NHTSA deems that a
manufacturer's chosen electronic means is impractical, does not
feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners impacted, or is
otherwise inappropriate. Specifically, Harley-Davidson requested
clarification of what constitutes ``impractical'' and ``inappropriate''
electronic means of notification, as well as clarification of what
factors would inform NHTSA whether to require a manufacturer to issue
additional notification by other electronic means. Harley-Davidson
suggested that NHTSA at a minimum consider the facts and circumstances
surrounding the recall, including safety risk, scope, and recall
completion at the time of the determination. EMA and Alliance and
Global expressed more foundational concerns about NHTSA's discretion.
Alliance and Global asserted that NHTSA's discretion would be
unfettered, and that NHTSA would be able to exercise its discretion on
every recall because it is impossible to identify an electronic
communication that will feasibly reach every affected owner and
purchaser. EMA suggested that NHTSA might even require a manufacturer
to use a method of notification that is ineffective or impracticable.
To address such concerns, EMA and Alliance and Global requested
regulatory provisions, including ``safe harbors,'' to give deference to
a manufacturer's chosen means of electronic notification. Specifically,
EMA requested the rule require that NHTSA consult with manufacturers
before the issuance of additional notification by electronic means, and
further suggested a safe harbor for the follow-up provisions of 49 CFR
577.10 to provide that NHTSA will not ordinarily order a manufacturer
to issue additional notifications via an electronic means different
from that which the manufacturer has chosen. Alliance and Global also
requested a safe harbor for the issuance of additional notification by
electronic means: a presumption that NHTSA will not ordinarily order a
different means of electronic notification after it approves the form
of notification selected and identified by the manufacturer in a report
under 49 CFR part 573.
NHTSA again is proposing to retain agency discretion to require
manufacturers to issue additional recall notifications by other
electronic means if a manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does
not feasibly reach all of the impacted purchasers or owners, or the
agency otherwise deems the means inappropriate. NHTSA intends to
consider all relevant facts and circumstances of each recall when
determining whether to require additional notification by electronic
means, including but not limited to the factors Harley-Davidson listed
in its comments. Some additional factors NHTSA may consider are
reflected in 49 CFR 577.10(b) (listing factors relevant to whether to
require follow-up notifications).
As a general response to EMA's and Alliance and Global's comments
expressing concern about NHTSA's discretion to require additional
notification by electronic means, the agency reiterates that Congress
mandated NHTSA implement a rule requiring manufacturers issue recall
notification by electronic means, and the provisions of the FAST Act
reflect an interest in improving recall notification and completion.
NHTSA is fulfilling this mandate pursuant to its statutory and
regulatory authority through the framework set out in this proposed
rule which, including the provisions retaining agency discretion, is
consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Safety Act and
Congress's intent.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As to EMA's more specific concern that NHTSA may require a
manufacturer to use an ineffective or impracticable method of
notification, NHTSA has no intention of requiring any action that
fails to further the objectives of the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance and Global expressed particular concern that NHTSA could
exercise such discretion in every recall because it is impossible to
identify an electronic communication that will feasibly reach all
affected owners and purchasers. ``Feasible'' means, in most relevant
part, ``capable of being done or carried out,'' or ``reasonable,
likely.'' \26\ And NHTSA believes that for every recall there will
exist a notification by electronic means, or a combination of such
means, that is reasonably likely to reach each affected owner and
purchaser. Notably, in their comments Alliance and Global cite only to
relatively individualized electronic means of notification--stating
they are ``unaware of any email list, text message directory, or social
media outlet that will reach all affected owners'' (emphasis removed).
There are many other, broader electronic means available that do not
require such information. The proposed rule contemplates the very
concern Alliance and Global express here, and prescribes (in fact,
requires) a solution: additional notification by general electronic
means reasonably calculated to reach other affected owners and
purchasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, feasible, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feasible (last visited Nov. 8,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopting EMA's proposal to require that NHTSA consult with a
manufacturer before requiring additional notification by electronic
means risks undermining a significant cornerstone of the rule:
flexibility afforded to manufacturers to choose the means of electronic
notification. Part of the appeal of such flexibility is that
manufacturers are often well-positioned to gauge the likely
effectiveness of various electronic means of notification for any
particular recall.\27\ In accord with this approach, NHTSA anticipates
exercising discretion to require additional notifications by electronic
means in relatively limited situations, as it does today for first-
class mail notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ This flexibility may be particularly beneficial when a
recall involves vehicles not owned by individuals, but entities--as
SBMTC recognized with respect to its school buses, which are owned
by fleet agencies, school districts, and counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultation with NHTSA may become necessary, however, where a
manufacturer's chosen means has not produced results--i.e., an adequate
number of vehicles returned to remedy.\28\ At that juncture NHTSA finds
it appropriate and in alignment with the flexibility of the proposed
rule that the agency consult with the manufacturer to develop an
approach to improve the effectiveness of its recall notifications. This
framework is already reflected in the regulations, and NHTSA finds no
reason to add additional language to this effect in 49 CFR 577.10, as
EMA appears to request.\29\ Similarly, as NHTSA
[[Page 1916]]
believes this existing framework best carries out Congress's mandate
and balances, among other things, flexibility, oversight, and
accountability, the agency also finds no reason to adopt an explicit
safe harbor or presumption to defer to a manufacturer's chosen means of
electronic notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 49 CFR 577.10(a).
\29\ This supplemental proposed rule would merely confirm that
the Administrator also has the option to require follow-up
notification by electronic means (in addition to the option to
require first-class mail and/or other media).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This supplemental proposed rule, however, includes a requirement
not included in the NPRM: that manufacturers submit, by the effective
date of this rule, an ``electronic recall notification plan.'' At a
minimum, this plan must describe the means of electronic notification
that the manufacturer anticipates using for its recalls (based on,
e.g., the typical contact information available for owners and
purchasers) and describe how the manufacturer expects to approach the
selection of electronic means for a recall (e.g., noting any
preferences for certain means, and why). A manufacturer's electronic
recall notification must be consistent with its plans unless the
manufacturer notifies NHTSA ten days before the issuance of electronic
notifications that the notification will be inconsistent with the plan.
Such electronic recall notification plans must be submitted to the
agency every five years, although a revised plan may be submitted at
any time to account for changes in approaches to electronic recall
notification. NHTSA believes this requirement adequately apprises the
agency of each manufacturer's general approach to electronic recall
notification, while preserving manufacturers' flexibility to select
electronic means best suited for each recall.
Currently, 49 CFR 573.15 requires manufacturers of a certain number
of light vehicles or motorcycles in the current or prior calendar year
to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall
search tools on their websites. NHTSA requests public comment on
whether to implement a similar threshold for this requirement to submit
an electronic recall notification plan to NHTSA.
C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles Built Before the Compliance
Date, and Lead Time
NHTSA proposes to make the electronic notification requirements
applicable to recalls filed one year or later following publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register, with early compliance permitted
but optional. NHTSA proposes to make compliance with all other
requirements in this proposed rule be required on the effective date of
the final rule.
EMA commented that the final rule should not apply to recalled
vehicles built before the compliance date of the rule. EMA requested
this approach because information to achieve the likely most effective
electronic means of notification for heavy-duty vehicles--email,
telephone, and/or text--will not in all cases be known to the
manufacturer until after the compliance date of the final rule. Cummins
similarly requested, without additional comment, that the final rule
not apply to vehicles manufactured prior to the compliance date.
NHTSA declines to limit the proposed rule's applicability to only
vehicles built after the compliance date of the rule. NHTSA recognizes
that for some recalls, individualized notification by electronic means
such as those EMA references in its comments will be unavailable for
some affected owners and/or purchasers because of the unavailability of
the owners' or purchasers' electronic contact information. However,
this does not preclude a manufacturer from issuing broader notification
by other electronic means to reach vehicle owners, such as through
radio or social media. While direct notification through contact
information specific to the owner is preferred, NHTSA has contemplated
the difficulties associated with, among other things, recalls involving
older vehicles. Accordingly, the proposed rule implements the two-
tiered approach discussed above: requiring all reasonable efforts to
effect notification through contact information specific to each owner,
and where notification cannot be effected in that manner, requiring
additional notification by other electronic means reasonably calculated
to reach the owners that could not be reached.
EMA also observed that the NPRM did not address the lead time for
manufacturers ahead of when the agency would require compliance with
this rule. EMA commented that the compliance date should be no sooner
than one year after publication, which would allow manufacturers to
make necessary changes to their databases and systems. SBMTC requested
a longer, three-year lead time, stating that a majority of
manufacturers do not have electronic notification systems or necessary
databases of information in place. Cummins generally requested a lead
time sufficient to obtain relevant data and build records.
NHTSA proposes to make the electronic notification requirement
applicable to recalls filed one year or later following publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register. NHTSA recognizes that
manufacturers require time to develop procedures and collect
information to effect notification by electronic means as provided in
this supplemental proposed rule and believes that one year is adequate
for manufacturers to do so. This lead time will apply to all
manufacturers, regardless of whether they are manufacturers of motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and regardless of the type of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment they manufacture. Although
manufacturers will have this lead time, NHTSA nonetheless would
encourage the adoption of the requirements as soon as practicable.
IV. Proposed Changes To Recall Notification Requirements
Accordingly, consistent with the above, NHTSA is proposing the
following revisions to 49 CFR part 577 related to electronic recall
notifications, which differ in several respects from what was
previously proposed in the NPRM.
NHTSA is, as it did in the NPRM, proposing to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to
require that manufacturers issue recall notifications by electronic
means, in addition to first-class mail, each time a recall notification
is required. Notification by electronic means includes notification by
any of the following: electronic mail, text message, radio or
television notification, in-vehicle notification, social media or
targeted online campaign, telephone call (automated or otherwise), or
other similar electronic means. Copies of proposed notifications by
electronic means must be submitted to NHTSA's Recall Management
Division (NEF-107) through the online Manufacturers Recall Portal no
fewer than five Federal Government business days before the
manufacturer intends to begin sending the notifications.
NHTSA is also differing from the NPRM in that it is now proposing
that electronic recall notification be accomplished using a two-tiered
approach. First, all reasonable efforts must be made to transmit the
notification by electronic means through contact information specific
to each individual owner and purchaser. Then, where any such person(s)
cannot be notified in this manner, additional notification by
electronic means must be issued that is reasonably calculated to reach
such person(s).
This supplemental proposal would require that notification by
electronic means issued must not be inconsistent
[[Page 1917]]
with the notice that is required under 49 U.S.C. 30119. For any chosen
electronic means of notification, where practical and where it can be
included in a manner consistent with this part, the notification must
include an internet hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that
complies with the content requirements of 577.5(b) through (g), along
with instructions for how the owner or purchaser can determine whether
his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted. In addition, where
notification by electronic means is not transmitted through contact
information specific to an individual owner or purchaser, manufacturers
subject to the requirement in 49 CFR 573.15 to provide recall
information searchable by vehicle identification number (VIN) must
direct people in that notification to NHTSA's VIN search tool or the
manufacturer's VIN search tool.
The agency is again proposing to retain discretion to require other
electronic means and additional notifications if a manufacturer's
chosen means is impractical, does not feasibly reach all affected
owners or purchasers, or is otherwise deemed inappropriate.
NHTSA's supplemental proposal here also includes, unlike the NPRM,
a requirement that manufacturers, before issuing an electronic
notification and at least once every five years, submit to NHTSA's
Recall Management Division (NEF-107) through the online Manufacturers
Recall Portal a plan for the notification of owners and purchasers of
recalls by electronic means. The plan must describe the means of
electronic notification that the manufacturer anticipates using for its
recalls, and how the manufacturer will evaluate the selection of the
electronic means used for a recall, including an explanation of any
preferences for the use of certain electronic means. A manufacturer's
electronic recall notifications must be consistent with its plans
unless it notifies NHTSA no fewer than ten Federal Government business
days before the anticipated issuance of any such notifications that
would be inconsistent with its plan. An accompanying explanation for
the inconsistency is also required under this proposal.
Lastly, under this supplemental proposed rule, any follow-up
notification sent by electronic means must conform with the above
requirements. The Administrator may authorize the use of other means
besides first-class mail and electronic means for a follow-up
notification.
V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part 577
Below are further revisions to part 577 in this supplemental
proposed rule that do not relate specifically to recall notification by
electronic means and were not proposed in the NPRM.
A. Language in Recall Notifications
This supplemental proposed rule includes revisions to the language
required on the outside of each envelope containing an owner
notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(a), and at the top of the owner
notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(b). Currently, the former
provision requires the language ``SAFETY RECALL NOTICE'' on the outside
of each envelope, and the latter requires the language ``IMPORTANT
SAFETY RECALL'' at the top of the notification. Effective recall
messaging includes, among other things, conveying a sense of
urgency.\30\ For example, in a survey done by the Independent Monitor
of Takata of 262 drivers of vehicles affected by the Takata air bag
recalls, ``results illustrated that communications using high impact
words and phrases motivate affected vehicle owners to act,'' with
respondents stating that outreach should describe the recalls as, among
other things, ``urgent.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See generally Tips for Increasing Recall Completion Rates,
NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completion-rates (last visited Nov., 2024).
\31\ The Independent Monitor of Takata, Update on the State of
the Takata Airbag Recalls (Dec. 21, 2018), at 16, available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/2018-update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is proposing to change both statements above to ``URGENT
SAFETY RECALL.'' The agency believes that this proposed change will
improve the impact that recall notifications have on owners and further
motivate them to obtain a remedy. While NHTSA recognizes that for
certain recalls a remedy is not immediately available, all recalls
involve either a defect that poses an ``unreasonable risk'' or a
noncompliance with a safety standard (which was adopted based on a
finding of a safety need, 49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). NHTSA invites comment on
this proposed change.
B. Updated Office and Website Designations
This supplemental proposed rule revises two outdated references to
the office designation of NHTSA's Recall Management Division in 49 CFR
577.5(a), changing ``NVS-215'' to ``NEF-107.'' In addition, the
proposed rule updates the website to which manufacturers must direct
owners in recall notifications, changing ``https://www.safercar.gov'' to
NHTSA's current website, ``https://www.nhtsa.gov.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://www.safercar.gov currently redirects to https://www.nhtsa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Language Regarding FMVSS Noncompliances
49 CFR 577.5 contains two references--in (a) and (c)(2)--to
circumstances where it is determined that a motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment does not conform with a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS). Specifically, this language refers to a
``failure to conform'' and products that ``fail to conform.'' NHTSA is
proposing to change this language to instead read ``does not comply
with,'' which is in greater alignment with the statutory language and
ordinary usage in this context.
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, or Executive Order 14094. NHTSA has
considered the impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action would
amend 49 CFR part 577 to update the procedures by which manufacturers
notify owners and purchasers of defects and noncompliances in an effort
to improve vehicle safety recall completion. This rulemaking imposes no
new significant burdens on the manufacturers and does not create
significant related costs that would require the development of a full
cost/benefit evaluation. Since this action also does not change the
number of entities or individuals subject to this requirement, the
impacts of the rule are limited.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impact of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The amendments almost entirely affect manufacturers of motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS''), Subsector 336--Transportation
Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small
[[Page 1918]]
business size standard of 1,500 employees or fewer for automobile and
light duty motor vehicle manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-
related industries have lower size requirements that range between
1,000 and 1,500 employees.\33\ Small businesses are subject to the
notification requirements and therefore may be affected by the proposed
changes in this final rule. However, the impacts of this rulemaking on
small businesses are minimal, as this supplemental proposed rule does
not impose a significant additional burden or additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of size
standards, https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representative is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has determined that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule would apply to
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and would
not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 is not implicated and consultation with
State and local officials is not required.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. NHTSA is aware of the November 12, 2024
decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration,
No. 23-1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024). To the extent that a court may
conclude that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
implementing NEPA are not judicially enforceable or binding on this
agency action, NHTSA has nonetheless elected to follow those
regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, in addition to DOT's procedures/
regulations implementing NEPA at DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, to meet the
agency's obligations under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order
5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative
activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do not involve or lead
directly to construction). This rule is not anticipated to result in
any environmental impacts and there are no extraordinary circumstances
present in connection with this rulemaking.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes
revised requirements for manufacturers to notify owners, purchasers,
and dealers of defects or noncompliances in motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment. The primary change proposed in this rulemaking,
which is required by statute, requires manufacturers to distribute
through electronic means certain safety recall information that they
are already required to distribute in hard copy (by first class mail).
The other changes proposed in this rulemaking are ministerial, such as
updating the office designation and web address for NHTSA in NHTSA's
regulations. Accordingly, this rule is not expected to significantly
affect the quality of the human environment.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. A person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This supplemental proposed rulemaking if
finalized would create new information collection requirements under
defect and recall notification requirements. In compliance with the
PRA, NHTSA has separately published a notice requesting comment on
NHTSA's intention to request approval to reinstate a previously
approved collection. For additional details, see NHTSA's most recent
60-day notice.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 88 FR 73636 (Oct. 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR parts 573 and 577, Defect and Noncompliance
Notification.
Type of Request: Reinstatement with modification of a previously
approved collection.
OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three (3) years from the
date of approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection covers
the information collection requirements found within various statutory
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 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).
Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the
Information: The information is needed for NHTSA to better serve the
public by monitoring safety recalls and having consumers provided
timely recall information. Owners and purchasers will benefit from the
increased ease with which they can ascertain information on recalled
vehicles. The public at large will benefit from a decrease in the
numbers of defective or noncompliant vehicles on public roads--and the
corresponding decrease in injuries and fatalities expected to result
from increased recall completion.
Affected Public: Should this proposal be made final, it is expected
that all manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and currently subject to
defect and noncompliance reporting and notification requirements will
be subject to the updated requirements.
Estimated Number of Respondents: NHTSA receives reports of defects
or noncompliances from roughly 240 distinct manufacturers per year.
Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that there will be a total of 240
respondents per year associated with this supplemental proposed rule.
Frequency: As circumstances necessitate.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: This supplemental
proposed rule requiring manufacturers to notify affected owners and
purchasers of recalls by electronic means in
[[Page 1919]]
addition to first-class mail notifications will add some paperwork
burden to the industry. In the NPRM, NHTSA reasoned that electronic
methods of recall notification such as email, over-the-air
communications, and use of social-media accounts are existing
technologies and largely free of charge. However, the agency did
anticipate that each recall would require 4 burden hours for a
manufacturer to plan its strategy for meeting the electronic
notification requirement and executing that strategy. With an estimated
854 recalls filed each year, NHTSA estimated 3,416 burden hours (854
recalls x 4 hours) for this new requirement.
TIA commented that it believed this estimate was accurate. Alliance
and Global, however, disagreed that the electronic methods of
communication are ``largely free of charge,'' stating radio and
television ``can be very expensive with limited ability to evaluate
effectiveness.'' Alliance and Global, citing costs incurred to pay
vendors to handle message preparation and distribution, also commented
that ``[e]ven for internet-based electronic communication such as text
messaging and emails, manufacturers will incur substantial costs for
acquiring contact information for customers.'' Alliance and Global
further noted that as contact information for direct means of
electronic communication change, manufacturers will incur additional
costs to keep that contact information up-to-date, and expressed
concern with how NHTSA's discretion to order additional notifications
may affect its burden estimate that ``assumes only one electronic
notification per recall.''
Alliance and Global requested that NHTSA identify various costs and
separately evaluate those costs with respect to different industry
sectors (listing, in particular, light duty vehicle manufacturers,
heavy vehicle manufacturers, child restraint manufacturers, tire
manufacturers, and equipment manufacturers). Alliance and Global also
requested that OMB require NHTSA develop a plan to evaluate whether the
rule would actually result in increased participation rates ``[b]ecause
the true costs and benefits of this proposal are unknown.'' \35\
Alliance and Global further requested that NHTSA consider allowing
recall notifications exclusively through electronic means ``[i]n light
of the high cost of first-class mailings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Alliance and Global stated that the cost per VIN for emails
and text messages ranges from $0.01 to $0.20 per VIN from vendors,
and that individuals receiving certain notifications may also incur
costs (e.g., via text messaging, depending on the individual's
wireless service plan), which it commented that NHTSA should also
evaluate. However, Alliance and Global acknowledged that set-up fees
are not significant cost drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter and in support of the benefits of this
proposal, since the NPRM, NHTSA has engaged in several years of
oversight of the recalls of Takata air bag inflators--the largest
automotive recall in U.S. history. Under recommendations issued by the
Independent Monitor of Takata in consultation with NHTSA, affected
vehicle manufacturers have been conducting frequent outreach to
affected owners using various methods of non-traditional means,
including electronic means (e.g., text messages and email).\36\ Among
other things, completion percentages for recalls of the oldest vehicles
affected by these recalls avoided a ``leveling off'' in completion
percentage typically observed for recall campaigns involving vehicles
10 years or older.\37\ NHTSA has also previously pointed in other
contexts to sources that tend toward advocating greater notification
frequency to persuade action, and the utility of frequent outreach via
multiple communications methods is supported by available information,
including a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated
Remedy Program, Coordinated Communications Recommendations (Dec. 23,
2016), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/coordinated_communications_recommendations_1.pdf.
\37\ See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated
Remedy Program, The State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (Nov. 15,
2017) at 66 fig.37, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/2017-the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.pdf.
\38\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Auto Recalls:
NHTSA Should Take Steps to Further Improve the Usability of Its
website (GAO-18-127) (Dec. 4, 2017), at 10-11, 13-15 (indicating
articulated safety risk is the most influential factor in owners'
decision to obtain repair, and that owners have additional
preference for receiving recall notification by electronic means);
82 FR 45941 (Oct. 2, 2017); GM Safety Recalls: Innovations in
Customer Outreach (NHTSA Retooling Recalls Workshop, April 28,
2015); Auto Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings (Nov. 2015); GM
letter to NHTSA in comment to NPRM, Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001 (Mar.
23, 2016); Susanne Schmidt & Martin Eisend, Advertising Repetition:
A Meta-Analysis on Effective Frequency in Advertising, 44 J.
Advertising 415, 425 (2015); Blair Entenmann, Marketing Help!, The
Principles of Targeted Direct Mail Advertising (2007); Chuck
Flantroy, Direct Mail Works: The Power of Frequency, Kessler
Creative (Aug. 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this supplemental proposed rule, NHTSA is revising its pending
burden-hours estimate to account for the proposed requirement that
manufacturers submit to NHTSA an electronic recall notification plan.
NHTSA anticipates each electronic recall notification plan will take 24
hours to develop and submit to the agency. With 240 distinct
manufacturers filing at least one part 573 report each year, and an
average of 24 hours to develop and submit each electronic recall
notification plan, NHTSA estimates that it will take manufacturers
1,152 hours annually to develop and submit electronic recall
notification plans to NHTSA (24 hours x 240 distinct manufacturers x
\1/5\ [one plan every five years]). For planning and executing
electronic recall notification for each recall, NHTSA is reducing its
previous estimate in the NPRM of 4 burden hours to 2 burden hours to
account for efficiencies realized from developing electronic recall
notification plans. With an estimated 976 recalls filed each year, the
agency estimates 1,952 burden hours (952 recalls x 2 hours) for
manufacturers to plan and execute their strategies for each recall to
meet the electronic recall notification requirements. Accordingly,
NHTSA estimates a total of 3,104 annual burden hours associated with
this supplemental proposed rule.
Estimated Total Annual Reporting and Recording Burden Cost
Resulting from the Information Collection: To calculate the labor cost
associated with developing and submitting the electronic recall
notification, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of personnel
involved with compiling and submitting the documents. NHTSA estimates
the total labor costs associated with these burden hours by looking at
the average wage for technical writers in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates
that the average hourly wage for technical writers (BLS Occupation code
#27-3042) in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry is $41.64.\39\
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that private industry workers'
wages represent 70.3% of total labor compensation costs.\40\ Therefore,
NHTSA estimates the hourly labor costs to be $59.23 for technical
writers (BLS Occupation code #27-3042) in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual
labor cost associated with the 3,104 total annual burden hours to be
$183,849.92 (3,104 hours x $59.23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See May 2023 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics4_336100.htm (accessed Dec. 5, 2024).
\40\ See Sept. 10, 2024 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation
Summary, available at https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ecec.htm
(accessed Dec. 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1920]]
NHTSA appreciates the comments that it received that address the
cost of the proposed rule and recognizes there may be additional costs
associated with compliance not raised in the NPRM. At this juncture,
with the various revisions and additions in this supplemental proposed
rule, the agency solicits further comment on the associated costs
before further addressing the comments it has already received on this
issue.
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) whether the Department's estimate for the burden of
information collection is accurate; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this document to NHTSA and OMB. Although comments may be
submitted during the entire comment period, comments received within 30
days of publication are most useful.
NHTSA recognizes that the collection of information contained in
this supplemental proposed rule may be subject to revision in response
to public comments.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' This proposed rule would amend 49 CFR part 577 to
update the procedures by which manufacturers notify owners and
purchasers of defects and noncompliances in an effort to improve
vehicle safety recall completion, and does not involve any voluntary
consensus standards as it relates to NHTSA or this rulemaking.
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, Feb.
7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort
to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive
effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced,
impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification
and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if
any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be
required before parties may file suit in court; (6) adequately defines
key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA has considered these issues and
determined that this rule does not have any retroactive or preemptive
effect. The rule only applies to procedures by which manufacturers
notify owners and purchasers of defects and noncompliances, with
amendments as to how that is done prospectively. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement associated with this rule that individuals
submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative
proceeding before they may file suit in court.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually. Because this rulemaking would not have a
$100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
I. Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking
that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under
E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the
supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated
by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject
to E.O. 13211.
J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. You
may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
K. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraph) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Regulatory Text
For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 577 as follows:
PART 577-DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 1921]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
0
2. Amend Sec. 577.5 by:
0
a. revising the first, fifth, sixth, and eighth sentences of paragraph
(a),;
0
b. revising the first sentence of paragraph (b);
0
c. revising paragraph (c)(2); and
0
d. revising paragraph (g)(1)(vii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 577.5 Notification pursuant to a manufacturer's decision.
(a) When a manufacturer of motor vehicles or replacement equipment
determines that any motor vehicle or item of equipment produced by the
manufacturer contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, or
does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standard, or the manufacturer files a defect or noncompliance
information report under 49 CFR part 573, the manufacturer shall
provide notification in accordance with Sec. 577.7(a), unless the
manufacturer is exempted by the Administrator (pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such notification. * * * Except as
authorized by the Administrator, the manufacturer shall submit a copy
of its proposed owner notification letter and, for recalls filed
January 12, 2026 or later, notification by electronic means, including
any provisions or attachments related to reimbursement, to NHTSA's
Recall Management Division (NEF-107) through the online Manufacturers
Recall Portal no fewer than five (5) Federal Government business days
before it intends to begin sending the notifications to owners. The
manufacturer shall mark the outside of each envelope in which it sends
an owner notification letter with a notation that includes the phrase
``URGENT SAFETY RECALL,'' all in capital letters and in a type that is
larger than that used in the address section, and is also
distinguishable from the other type in a manner other than size. * * *
Except where the format of the envelope has been previously approved by
NHTSA's Recall Management Division (NEF-107), each manufacturer must
submit the envelope format it intends to use to that division through
the online Manufacturers Recall Portal at least five (5) Federal
Government business days before mailing the notification to owners. * *
*
(b) At the top of the notification, there must be the statement
``URGENT SAFETY RECALL,'' in all capital letters and in a type size
that is larger than that used in the remainder of the letter. * * *
(c) * * *
(2) ``(Manufacturer's name or division) has decided that
(identified motor vehicles, in the case of notification sent by a motor
vehicle manufacturer; identified equipment, in the case of notification
sent by a replacement equipment manufacturer) does not comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. (number and title of
standard).''
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) A statement informing the owner that he or she may submit a
complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; or call
the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-
9153); or go to https://www.nhtsa.gov, if the owner believes that:
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 577.7 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and
by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 577.7 Time and manner of notification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor
vehicle manufacturer, by first-class mail and by electronic means, to
each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the
vehicle and whose name, address, and contact information for
notification by electronic means are reasonably ascertainable by the
manufacturer through State records or other sources available to it.
If, in the case of notification by electronic means, the owner cannot
be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall notify the most
recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. For first-class mail and
electronic notifications, the manufacturer shall also provide
notification to each lessee of a leased motor vehicle that is covered
by an agreement between the manufacturer and a lessor under which the
manufacturer is to notify lessees directly of safety-related defects
and noncompliances.
(ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a
replacement equipment manufacturer--
(A) By first-class mail and by electronic means to the most recent
purchaser known to the manufacturer, and
(B) (Except in the case of a tire) if decided by the Administrator
to be required for motor vehicle safety, by public notice in such
manner as the Administrator may require after consultation with the
manufacturer.
(iii) In the case of a manufacturer required to provide
notification concerning any defective or noncomplying tire, by first-
class or certified mail and by electronic means.
(iv) In the case of a notification to be sent by a lessor to a
lessee of a leased motor vehicle, by first-class mail and by electronic
means to the most recent lessee known to the lessor. Such notification
shall be sent within ten days of the lessor's receipt of the
notification from the vehicle manufacturer.
* * * * *
(e) Notification by electronic means as required by paragraph
(a)(2) of this section and as described in this paragraph (e) applies
to recalls filed January 12, 2026 or later, and includes notification
by any of the following: electronic mail, text message, radio or
television notification, in-vehicle notification, social media or
targeted online campaign, telephone call (automated or otherwise), or
other similar electronic means.
(1) Requirements of notification by electronic means. (i) All
reasonable efforts shall be made to transmit notification by electronic
means through contact information specific to each individual owner,
purchaser, and lessee. Where any owner, purchaser, or lessee cannot be
notified in this manner, additional notification by other electronic
means shall be issued that is reasonably calculated to reach such
owners, purchasers, and lessees.
(ii) Notification by electronic means must not be inconsistent with
the notice required under 49 U.S.C. 30119. For any chosen electronic
means of notification, where it is practical and can be included in a
manner consistent with this part, the notification must include an
internet hyperlink to a notice that complies with the content
requirements of Sec. 577.5(b) through (g), or provide an internet
hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that complies with the
content requirements of Sec. 577.5(b) through (g) along with
instructions for how the owner, purchaser, or lessee can determine
whether his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted.
(iii) In the case of a notification by electronic means that is not
transmitted through contact information specific to an individual
owner, purchaser, or lessee, manufacturers who are subject to the
requirements in Sec. 573.15 to provide recall information searchable
by vehicle identification number (VIN) must direct people in that
notification to NHTSA's VIN search tool or the manufacturer's VIN
search tool.
[[Page 1922]]
(2) Administrator discretion. The Administrator retains the
discretion to require other electronic means and additional
notifications if a manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does not
feasibly reach all affected owners, purchasers, or lessees, or is
otherwise deemed inappropriate.
(3) Electronic recall notification plans. (i) At least once every
five (5) years manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA's Recall Management
Division (NEF-107), through the online Manufacturers Recall Portal, a
plan for the notification of owners, purchasers, and lessees of recalls
by electronic means. This plan must describe the means of electronic
notification that the manufacturer anticipates utilizing for its
recalls and how the manufacturer will evaluate the selection of the
electronic means utilized for a recall, including an explanation of any
preferences for the use of certain electronic means.
(ii) A manufacturer's electronic recall notifications issued under
this section must be consistent with its electronic recall notification
plan unless the manufacturer notifies NHTSA no fewer than ten (10)
Federal Government business days before the anticipated issuance of any
notification by electronic means that would be inconsistent with its
electronic recall notification plan, with an accompanying explanation
for the inconsistency.
0
4. Amend Sec. 577.10 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 577.10 Follow-up notification.
* * * * *
(g) A follow-up notification sent by first-class mail or by
electronic means shall be sent in conformance with the requirements of
Sec. 577.7 of this part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
part, the Administrator may authorize the use of other means besides
first-class mail and electronic means for a follow-up notification.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated pursuant to 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-31011 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P