[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45941-45946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21053]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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


Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for comment on the renewal of collection of 
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from 
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit 
public comment on proposed collections of information, including 
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA 
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods. 
All comments must have the applicable DOT docket number (i.e., NHTSA-
2016-0065) noted conspicuously on them.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. 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 Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through

[[Page 45942]]

Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the 
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, or for 
background documents, contact Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel 
(NCC-0100), Room W41-229, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB 
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register 
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of 
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of 
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must 
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation, see 5 CFR 
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public 
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information 
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
    Affected Public: Businesses or individuals.
    Abstract: This notice requests comment on NHTSA's proposed renewal 
to approved collection of information OMB No. 2127-0004. This 
collection covers the information collection requirements found within 
various statutory sections in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(Act), 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., that address and require manufacturer 
notifications to NHTSA of safety-related defects and failures to comply 
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in motor vehicles 
and motor vehicle equipment, as well as the provision of particular 
information related to the ensuing owner and dealers notifications and 
free remedy campaigns that follow those notifications. The sections of 
the Act imposing these requirements include 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30119, 
30120, and 30166. Many of these requirements are implemented through, 
and addressed with more specificity in, 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (Part 573) and 49 CFR 577, 
Defect and Noncompliance Notification (Part 577).
    Pursuant to the Act, motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment 
manufacturers are obligated to notify, and then provide various 
information and documents to, NHTSA in the event a safety defect or 
noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) is 
identified in products they manufactured. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and 49 
CFR 573.6. Manufacturers are further required to notify owners, 
purchasers, dealers, and distributors about the safety defect or 
noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), 30120(a); 49 CFR 577.7, 577.13. 
Manufacturers are required to provide to NHTSA copies of communications 
pertaining to recall campaigns that they issue to owners, purchasers, 
dealers, and distributors. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(f); 49 CFR 573.6(c)(10).
    Manufacturers are also required to file with NHTSA a plan 
explaining how they intend to reimburse owners and purchasers who paid 
to have their products remedied before being notified of the safety 
defect or noncompliance, and explain that plan in the notifications 
they issue to owners and purchasers about the safety defect or 
noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.13. Manufacturers 
are further required to keep lists of the respective owners, 
purchasers, dealers, distributors, lessors, and lessees of the products 
determined to be defective or noncompliant and involved in a recall 
campaign, and are required to provide NHTSA with a minimum of six 
quarterly reports reporting on the progress of their recall campaigns. 
See 49 CFR 573.8 and 573.7, respectively.
    In addition, in an enforcement action, certain manufacturers may be 
required by administrative order to conduct supplemental recall 
communications utilizing non-traditional means (e.g., text messaging, 
social media) crucial to achieving completion of a unique, large-scale 
recall. Presently, NHTSA is overseeing recalls of unprecedented 
complexity involving Takata air bag inflators, where it has required 
such supplemental owner communications.\1\ NHTSA specifically seeks 
comment on its estimates of the supplemental recall communications 
associated with the Takata recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Act and Part 573 also contain numerous information collection 
requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns. These 
requirements relate to the proper disposal of recalled tires, including 
a requirement that the manufacturer conducting the tire recall submit a 
plan and provide specific instructions to certain persons (such as 
dealers and distributors) addressing that disposal, and a requirement 
that those persons report back to the manufacturer certain deviations 
from the plan. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9). The 
regulations also require that manufacturers report to NHTSA intentional 
and knowing sales or leases of defective or noncompliant tires.
    49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation found at 49 CFR 
573.10 mandate that anyone who knowingly and willfully sells or leases 
for use on a motor vehicle a defective tire or a tire that is not 
compliant with FMVSS, and with actual knowledge that the tire 
manufacturer has notified its dealers of the defect or noncompliance as 
required under the Act, is required to report that sale or lease to 
NHTSA no

[[Page 45943]]

more than five working days after the person to whom the tire was sold 
or leased takes possession of it.
    Estimated Burden: The existing information collection associated 
with 49 CFR part 573 and portions of 49 CFR part 577 currently has an 
estimated annual burden of 36,070 hours associated with an estimated 
275 respondents per year.\2\ Our prior estimates of the burden hours 
and cost associated with the requirements currently covered by this 
information collection require adjustment as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 81 FR 70269 (October 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on current information, we estimate 274 distinct 
manufacturers filing an average of 963 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports 
each year. This is a change from our previous estimate of 854 Part 573 
Safety Recall Reports filed by 275 manufacturers each year. In 
addition, with reference to the metric associated with NHTSA's VIN 
Look-up Tool regulation, see 49 CFR 573.15, we continue to estimate it 
takes the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers (that produce more 
than 25,000 vehicles annually) more burden hours to complete these 
Reports to NHTSA. See 81 FR 70270 (October 11, 2016). Between 2014 and 
2016, the major passenger-vehicle manufacturers conducted an average of 
299 recalls annually.
    We continue to estimate that maintenance of the required owner, 
purchaser, dealer, and distributors lists requires 8 hours a year per 
manufacturer. We also continue estimate it takes a major passenger-
vehicle manufacturer 20 hours to complete each notification report to 
NHTSA, and it takes all other manufacturers 4 hours. Accordingly, we 
estimate the annual burden hours related to the reporting to NHTSA of a 
safety defect or noncompliance for the 17 major passenger vehicle-
manufacturers to be 5,980 hours annually (299 notices x 20 hours/
report), and that all other manufacturers require a total of 2,656 
hours annually (664 notices x 4 hours/report) to file their notices. 
Accordingly, the estimated annual burden hours related to the reporting 
to NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance is 10,828 hours (5,980 
hours + 2,656 hours) + (274 MFRs x 8 hours to maintain purchaser 
lists).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more information about how we derived these and certain 
other estimates please see 81 FR 70269 (October 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to estimate that an additional 40 hours will be needed 
to account for major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adding details to 
Part 573 Safety Recall Reports relating to the intended schedule for 
notifying its dealers and distributors, and tailoring its notifications 
to dealers and distributors in accordance with the requirements of 49 
CFR 577.13. An additional 2 hours will be needed to account for this 
obligation in other manufacturers' Safety Recall Reports. This burden 
is estimated at 13,288 hours annually (664 notices x 2 hours/
notification) + (299 notices x 40 hours/notification).
    49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires manufacturers to provide to the Agency 
copies of all communications regarding defects and noncompliances sent 
to owners, purchasers, and dealerships. Manufacturers must index these 
communications by the year, make, and model of the vehicle as well as 
provide a concise summary of the subject of the communication. We 
continue to estimate this burden requires 30 minutes for each vehicle 
recall. This totals an estimated 482 hours annually (963 recalls x .5 
hours).
    In the event a manufacturer supplied the defective or noncompliant 
product to independent dealers through independent distributors, that 
manufacturer is required to include in its notifications to those 
distributors an instruction that the distributors are to then provide 
copies of the manufacturer's notification of the defect or 
noncompliance to all known distributors or retail outlets further down 
the distribution chain within five working days. See 49 CFR 
577.7(c)(2)(iv). As a practical matter, this requirement would only 
apply to equipment manufacturers since vehicle manufacturers generally 
sell and lease vehicles through a dealer network, and not through 
independent distributors. We believe our previous estimate of 95 
equipment recalls per year needs to be adjusted to 87 equipment recalls 
per year to better reflect recent data. Although distributors are not 
required to follow that instruction, we expect that they will, and have 
estimated the burden associated with these notifications (identifying 
retail outlets, making copies of the manufacturer's notice, and 
mailing) to be 5 hours per recall campaign. Assuming an average of 3 
distributors per equipment item, (which is a liberal estimate given 
that many equipment manufacturers do not use independent distributors) 
the total number of burden hours associated with this third-party 
notification burden is approximately 1,305 hours per year (87 recalls x 
3 distributors x 5 hours).
    As for the burden linked with a manufacturer's preparation of and 
notification concerning its reimbursement for pre-notification 
remedies, we continue to estimate that the preparation of a 
reimbursement plan takes approximately 4 hours annually, an additional 
.5 hours per year is spent tailoring the plan to particular defect and 
noncompliance notifications to NHTSA and adding tailored language about 
the plan to a particular safety recall's owner notification letters, 
and an additional 12 hours annually is spent disseminating plan 
information, for a total 4,866 annual burden hours ((274 MFRs x 4 hours 
to prepare plan) + (963 recalls x .5 hours tailoring plan for each 
recall) + (274 MFRs x 12 hours to disseminate plan information)). For 
more information about how we calculated these estimates please see the 
Federal Register Notices 81 FR 70269 (October 11, 2016).
    The Safety Act and 49 CFR part 573 also contain numerous 
information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy 
campaigns, as well as a statutory and regulatory reporting requirement 
that anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or leases a defective 
or noncompliant tire notify NHTSA of that activity.
    Manufacturers are required to include specific information related 
to tire disposal in the notifications they provide NHTSA concerning 
identification of a safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS in their 
tires, as well as in the notifications they issue to their dealers or 
other tire outlets participating in the recall campaign. See 49 CFR 
573.6(c)(9). We continue to estimate that the agency administers 12 
tire recalls each year, on average. We continue to estimate that the 
inclusion of this additional information will require an additional two 
hours of effort beyond the subtotal above associated with non-tire 
recall campaigns. This additional effort consists of one hour for the 
NHTSA notification and one hour for the dealer notification for a total 
of 24 burden hours (12 tire recalls a year x 2 hours per recall).
    Manufacturer-owned or controlled dealers are required to notify the 
manufacturer and provide certain information should they deviate from 
the manufacturer's disposal plan. Consistent with our previous 
analysis, we continue to ascribe zero burden hours to this requirement 
since to date no such reports have been provided and our original 
expectation that dealers would comply with manufacturers' plans has 
proven true.
    Accordingly, we continue to estimate 24 burden hours a year will be 
spent complying with the tire recall campaign requirements found in 49 
CFR 573.6(c)(9).

[[Page 45944]]

    The agency recently received one report under 49 U.S.C. 30166(n) 
and its implementing regulation at 49 CFR 573.10 of a defective or 
noncompliant tire being intentionally sold or leased, so our previous 
estimate of zero burden hours for this regulatory requirement is being 
revised. The agency estimates 1 burden hour annually will be spent 
preparing and submitting such reports.
    We continue to believe nine vehicle manufacturers, who did not 
operate VIN-based recalls lookup systems prior to August 2013, incur 
certain recurring burdens on an annual basis. We continue to estimate 
that 100 burden hours will be spent on system and database 
administrator support. These 100 burden hours include: Backup data 
management and monitoring; database management, updates, and log 
management; and data transfer, archiving, quality assurance, and 
cleanup procedures. We continue to estimate another 100 burden hours 
will be incurred on web/application developer support. These burdens 
include: Operating system and security patch management; application/
web server management; and application server system and log files 
management. We continue to estimate these burdens will total 1,800 
hours each year (9 MFRs x 200 hours). We continue to estimate the 
recurring costs of these burden hours will be $30,000 per 
manufacturer.\4\ We continue to estimate that the total cost to the 
industry from these recurring expenses will total $270,000, on an 
annual basis (9 MFRs x $30,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ $8,000 (for data center hosting for the physical server) + 
$12,000 (for system and database administrator support) + $10,000 
(for web/application developer support) = $30,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to 49 CFR part 573 in 2013 required 27 manufacturers to 
update each recalled vehicle's repair status no less than every 7 days, 
for 15 years from the date the VIN is known to be included in the 
recall. This ongoing requirement to update the status of a VIN for 15 
years continues to add a recurring burden on top of the one-time burden 
to implement and operate these online search tools. We continue to 
estimate that 8 affected motorcycle manufacturers will make recalled 
VINs available for an average of 2 recalls each year and 19 affected 
passenger-vehicle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for 
an average of 8 recalls each year. We believe it will take no more than 
1 hour, and potentially much less with automated systems, to update the 
VIN status of vehicles that have been remedied under the manufacturer's 
remedy program. We continue to estimate this will require 8,736 burden 
hours per year (1 hour x 2 recalls x 52 weeks x 8 MFRs + 1 hour x 8 
recalls x 52 weeks x 19 MFRs) to support the requirement to update the 
recalls completion status of each VIN in a recall at least weekly for 
15 years.
    As the number of Part 573 Recall Reports has increased in recent 
years, so has the number of quarterly reports that track the completion 
of safety recalls. Our previous estimate of 3,800 quarterly reports 
received annually is now revised upwards to 4,498 quarter reports 
received annually. We continue to estimate it takes manufacturers 10 
minutes to gather the pertinent information for each quarterly report, 
and 4 additional hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle 
manufacturers. We therefore now estimate that the quarterly reporting 
burden pursuant to Part 573 totals 818 hours ((4,498 quarterly reports 
x 10 minutes/report) + (17 MFRs x 4 hours for electronic submission)).
    We continue to estimate a small burden of 2 hours annually in order 
to set up a manufacturer's online recalls portal account with the 
pertinent contact information and maintaining/updating their account 
information as needed. We estimate this will require a total of 548 
hours annually (2 hours x 274 MFRs).
    We continue to estimate that 20 percent of Part 573 reports will 
involve a change or addition regarding recall components, and that at 
one hour per amended report, this totals 193 burden hours per year (963 
recalls x .20 = 193 recalls; 193 x 1 = 193 hours).
    As to the requirement that manufacturers notify NHTSA in the event 
of a bankruptcy, we expect this notification to take an estimated 2 
hours to draft and submit to NHTSA. We continue to estimate that only 
10 manufacturers might submit such a notice to NHTSA each year, so we 
calculate the total burden at 20 hours (10 MFRs x 2 hours).
    We continue to estimate that it takes manufacturers an average of 8 
hours to draft their notification letters, submit them to NHTSA for 
review, and then finalize them for mailing to their affected owners and 
purchasers. We estimate that the 49 CFR part 577 requirements result in 
7,704 burden hours annually (8 hours per recall x 963 recalls per 
year).
    The burden estimate associated with the regulation that requires 
interim owner notifications within 60 days of filing a Part 573 Safety 
Recall Report must be revised upward. We previously calculated that 
about 10 percent of past recalls require an interim notification 
mailing, but recent trends show that 12 percent of recalls require an 
interim owner notification mailing. We continue to estimate the 
preparation of an interim notification can take up to 10 hours. We 
therefore estimate that 1160 burden hours are associated with the 60-
day interim notification requirement (963 recalls x .12 = 116 recalls; 
116 recalls times 10 hours per recall = 1160 hours).
    As for costs associated with notifying owners and purchasers of 
recalls, we continue to estimate a cost of $1.50 per first class mail 
notification, on average. This cost estimate includes the costs of 
printing, mailing, as well as the costs vehicle manufacturers may pay 
to third-party vendors to acquire the names and addresses of the 
current registered owners from state and territory departments of motor 
vehicles. In reviewing recent recall figures, we determined that an 
estimated 75.8 million letters are mailed yearly totaling $113,700,000 
($1.50 per letter x 75,800,000 letters). The requirement in 49 CFR part 
577 for a manufacturer to notify their affected customers within 60 
days would add an additional $13,644,000 (75,800,000 letters x .12 
requiring interim owner notifications = 9,096,000 letters; 9,096,000 x 
$1.50 = $13,644,000). In total, we estimate that the current 49 CFR 
part 577 requirements cost manufacturers a total of $127,344,000 
annually ($113,700,000 for owner notification letters + $13,644,000 for 
interim notification letters = $127,344,000).
    NHTSA further has authority to require that, in an enforcement 
action, vehicle manufacturers conduct supplemental recall 
communications, potentially utilizing non-traditional means (e.g., text 
messaging, social media). This is currently occurring in the Takata 
recalls, which involve 19 vehicle manufacturers and over 46 million 
defective inflators currently under recall in approximately 34 million 
vehicles that need to be recalled as quickly as possible, given that 
thirteen people in the United States have lost their lives to a 
rupturing Takata inflator, and more than two hundred people have 
reported associated injuries, many of which were disfiguring or life-
threatening. The scope of the Takata recall has been unprecedented in 
the agency's history. Therefore, the below analysis only takes into 
account the expected paperwork burden of this collection over the next 
three years, without making any assumptions about the likelihood of 
another large-scale recall that leads to similar types of supplementary 
notices. However, the agency believes the lessons learned from the 
Takata recall

[[Page 45945]]

will provide a useful guidepost in structuring any similar future 
action.
    To address the scope and complexity of the Takata recall, NHTSA 
issued a Coordinated Remedy Order, as amended on December 9, 2016 (the 
``ACRO''), which requires affected vehicle manufacturers to conduct 
supplemental owner notification efforts in coordination with NHTSA and 
the Independent Monitor of Takata. On December 23, 2016, the Monitor, 
in consultation with NHTSA, issued Coordinated Communications 
Recommendations for vehicle owner outreach (``CCRs''), which includes a 
recommendation that vehicle manufacturers provide at least one form of 
consumer outreach per month for vehicles in a launched recall campaign 
(i.e., a recall where parts are available) until the vehicle is 
remedied (unless otherwise accounted for as scrapped, stolen, exported, 
or otherwise unreachable under certain procedures in the ACRO). See 
CCRs ]1(b); ACRO ]]45-46. The Monitor also recommended that 
manufacturers utilize at least three non-traditional means of 
communication (postcards; email; telephone calls; text message; social 
media) as part of their overall outreach strategy. See CCRs ]1(a). And 
the Monitor recommended including in these communications certain 
content, including certain safety-risk information. See id. ]2. If a 
vehicle manufacturer does not wish to follow the Monitor's 
recommendations, the ACRO permits the manufacturer to propose an 
alternative communication strategy to NHTSA and the Monitor.
    The Monitor's recommendations were adopted in significant part 
because research supports that frequent notifications using non-
traditional means result in improved remedy completion.\5\ The agency 
invites any additional feedback on the effectiveness of such outreach 
in future enforcement actions, as well as the paperwork burden 
associated with conducting that outreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., GM Safety Recalls: Innovations in Customer 
Outreach (NHTSA Retooling Recalls Workshop, April 28, 2015) 
(recognizing efficacy of various methods of owner engagement, and 
citing customer recognition of GM's ``persistence'' through multiple 
postcards and letters ``seal[ing] the deal'' for customer to seek 
timely recall remedy); Auto Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings 
(November 2015), at 16 (observing dealers ``[t]ry multiple attempts 
and methods [phone, email, mail] to contact customer'' when trying 
to increase recall repair rates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, vehicle manufacturers and others have agreed that greater 
notification frequency is preferred over less.\6\ However, the agency 
is aware of generalized concerns about ``notification fatigue'' and 
invites comment on this phenomenon, including the optimal frequency, 
content, mode, and method of recall/defects notifications from 
manufacturers to consumers. The agency is also particularly interested 
any research or data that relates to a recall with potential 
consequences of death or severe injury, as in the case of the Takata 
recalls. NHTSA also seeks comment on the content and language to 
include in these notifications, including relevant safety-risk 
information, to increase the likelihood that consumers remedy the issue 
as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., GM Safety Recalls, supra; Auto Alliance & NADA 
Survey Key Findings, supra; GM letter to NHTSA in comment to ANPRM, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001 (March 23, 2016), at 2 (``The best 
approach is to leverage multiple communication channels and, where 
possible, capture and use the customer's preferred method of 
communication. In those cases where consumers perceive non-repair to 
be low-risk, a ``saturation'' approach is sometimes effective. This 
approach increases the frequency of contact and alternates the means 
of communication.''); see also Susanne Schmidt & Martin Eisend, 
Advertising Repetition: A Meta-Analysis on Effective Frequency in 
Advertising, 44 J. Advertising 415, 425 (2015) (observing findings 
``clearly support the repetitionists' view in the literature over 
the minimalists' view: few exposures are not enough to achieve 
maximum response, but repetition is essential for consumer 
response''); id. at 426 (observing further that ``many exposures in 
real-world settings are not completed (i.e. the consumer does not 
read/watch/listen to an ad message in its entirety), and higher 
exposure rates are necessary to reach optimum response''--
accordingly, the study's figures even ``might understate the optimum 
exposure level needed in a real-world setting''); Blair Entenmann, 
Marketing Help!, The Principles of Targeted Direct Mail Advertising 
(2007) (``Timing may be a critical success factor--today they aren't 
interested, but next month they might be. Repetition will generate a 
better response.''); Chuck Flantroy, Direct Mail Works: The Power of 
Frequency, Kessler Creative (August 31, 2016), available at http://www.kesslercreative.com/marketing-tips-tricks/direct-mail-works-the-power-of-frequency/ (observing that ``[a] huge factor to take into 
account is the timing of . . . mailing(s). Even if your first 
mailing falls on deaf ears, your second or third may come at just 
the perfect time when a recipient of your campaign is in need of 
your products or services'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates a yearly average of 19 manufacturers will be 
issuing monthly supplemental communications over the next three years 
pursuant to the ACRO and the CCRs. Manufacturers may satisfy the CCRs 
through third-party vendors (which have been utilized by many 
manufacturers), in-house strategies, or some combination thereof. NHTSA 
estimates the cost for supplemental communications at $0.44 per VIN per 
month.
    The volume of outreach required by the ACRO and the CCRs (and the 
costs associated with that outreach) is a function of the number of 
unrepaired vehicles that are in a launched campaign and are not 
otherwise accounted for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise 
unreachable. The schedule in Paragraph 35 of the ACRO delineates the 
expected remedy completion rate, by quarter, of vehicles in a launched 
remedy campaign.
    Utilizing these variables, we estimate an initial annualized cost 
over the next three years of $43,557,722 per year. However, NHTSA 
anticipates that recent settlement agreements in the Southern District 
of Florida multi-district litigation (MDL) governing economic-loss 
actions against five manufacturer defendants will discount this figure 
based on outreach efforts those defendants (Toyota, Subaru, Nissan, 
BMW, Mazda, and Honda) are required to conduct pursuant to their 
respective settlements. See generally In re: Takata Airbag Products 
Liab. Litig., 14-cv-24009, MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.). These outreach 
programs are to utilize non-traditional methods of outreach, including 
telephone, email, social media, and text messaging, and NHTSA 
anticipates they will produce outreach that would satisfy the minimum 
requirements of the CCRs. In calculating the estimated burden the 
relevant manufacturers would have incurred under the same methodology 
described above, NHTSA is discounting the annualized cost contemplated 
by the ACRO and the CCRs by $15,721,393.
    Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the terms of ACRO and the CCRs, 
assuming remedy-completion rates consistent with those prescribed in 
the former, contemplate an annualized cost of $27,836,329 per year for 
the next three years (2018-2020). In addition, NHTSA estimates that 
manufacturers will take an average of 2 hours each month drafting or 
customizing supplemental recall communications utilizing non-
traditional means, submitting them to NHTSA for review, and finalizing 
them to send to affected owners and purchasers. NHTSA therefore 
estimates that 456 burden hours annually are associated with issuing 
these supplemental recall communications: 12 months x 2 hours per month 
x 19 manufacturers = 456 hours.
    Because of the forgoing burden estimates, we are revising the 
burden estimate associated with this collection. The 49 CFR part 573 
and 49 CFR part 577 requirements found in today's notice will require 
51,773 hours each year. Additionally, manufacturers impacted by 49 CFR 
part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements will incur a recurring annual 
cost estimated at $127,614,000 total. The burden estimate in this 
collection contemplated for conducting supplemental recall

[[Page 45946]]

communications under administrative order to achieve completion of the 
Takata recalls is 456 hours each year. Additionally, that 
administrative order contemplates impacted manufacturers incurring an 
annual cost estimated at $27,836,329. Therefore, in total, we estimate 
the burden associated with this collection to be 52,229 hours each 
year, with a recurring annual cost estimated at $155,450,329.
    Estimated Number of Respondents--
    NHTSA estimates that there will be approximately 274 manufacturers 
per year filing defect or noncompliance reports and completing the 
other information collection responsibilities associated with those 
filings. NHTSA estimates there will be an average of 19 manufacturers 
each year conducting supplemental nontraditional monthly outreach 
pursuant to administrative order in an enforcement action associated 
with the Takata recall.

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017-21053 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P