63598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 93–68; Notice 9]

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on

proposed collections of information.

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can

require collection of certain information

from the public, it must receive

approval from the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). Under new

procedures established under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

before seeking OMB approval, Federal

agencies must solicit public comment

on proposed collections of information,

including extensions and reinstatements

of previously approved collections. This

document describes a proposed

collection of information for which

NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

notice and docket numbers cited at the

beginning of this notice and be

submitted to Docket Section, Room

5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20590. Please identify

the proposed collection of information

for which a comment is provided as the

Proposed Part 577 Information

Collection. It is requested, but not

required, that one (1) original plus two

(2) copies of the comments be provided.

The Docket Section is open on

weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Complete copies of each NHTSA request

for OMB approval of a collection of

information may be obtained at no

charge from Mr. Edward Kosek, NHTSA

Information Collection Clearance

Officer, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Room 5110, Washington, DC

20590. The telephone number is (202)

366–2589.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, before an agency submits a

proposed collection of information to

OMB for approval, it must publish a

document soliciting public comments in

the Federal Register, with a 60-day

comment period, and otherwise consult

with members of the public and affected

agencies concerning each proposed

collection of information. OMB has

promulgated regulations describing

what must be included in the Federal

Register document. Under OMB’s

regulations (found at 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

comment on the following proposed

collection of information:

Amendment to Part 577 Requirements

for Notification of Dealers by

Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles or

Motor Vehicle Equipment with SafetyRelated Defects or Noncompliances

with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

Type of Request—Clearance for new

collection.

OMB Clearance Number—Not

applicable. New collection.

Form Number—This collection of

information uses no standard forms.

Requested Expiration Date for

Approval—Three years after date of

approval.

Summary of the Collection of

Information—This collection of

information applies to manufacturers of

motor vehicles and items of motor

vehicle equipment when it is decided

that a vehicle or item of equipment they

manufacture contains a safety-related

defect or fails to comply with a Federal

motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).

Manufacturers are required by statute to

notify dealers when it is decided that

safety-related defects or

noncompliances exist. The agency has

proposed an amendment to 49 CFR Part

577, Defect and Noncompliance

Notification, to establish a time limit

within which the manufacturers must

notify the dealers and to require that

certain information about dealer rights

and responsibilities with respect to the

defective or noncomplying vehicles or

equipment be included in the

notification.

Description of the Need for

Information and Proposed Use of the

Information—Dealers of vehicles or

equipment that are the subject of safety

recalls need to receive notification of

safety recalls from manufacturers

promptly after the decision is made to

recall, including information about the

prohibition against selling from

inventory vehicles that have been

determined to be subject to recall. This

prompt notification will minimize the

likelihood that dealers will sell unsafe

vehicles or equipment from their

inventories before the defect or

noncompliance is remedied. It is also

necessary for dealers to be informed of

their statutory rights vis a vis

manufacturers so that they will not fail

to participate in recalls due to erroneous

beliefs about who must bear financial

responsibility for providing the remedy

for the defect or noncompliance.

Description of the Likely Respondents

(Including Estimated Number) and

Proposed Frequency of Response to the

Collection of Information—The

estimated number of vehicle and

equipment manufacturers subject to this

rule is 500. The agency estimates that in

any given year the number of safety

recalls is approximately 300, based on

the average number of recalls per year

from 1993 through 1996. A

manufacturer is required to provide

notification in compliance with this rule

only if it is conducting a safety recall.

The frequency of response to the

collection of information depends on

the number of safety recalls a

manufacturer conducts.

Estimate of the Total Annual

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

Resulting from the Collection of

Information—The hour burden on

respondents from the final rule will

arise from the time manufacturers will

spend in rewriting their dealer

notification letters to include the

additional information specified in the

rule, and in writing letters to NHTSA to

request a delay in providing dealer

notification beyond the five days

specified in the rule.

The agency estimates that the average

time needed for a manufacturer to revise

the language of a dealer notification

letter to include the newly-required

language will be 1⁄2 hour. This is based

on the assumption that most

manufacturers use a form letter as the

basis for their dealer notification letters;

and that those few that do not do so

experience very few, if any, recalls in a

year.

The total number of hours needed for

all 500 potentially affected
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63599

manufacturers to modify their dealer

notification letters is 250 hours (500

manufacturers × 1⁄2 hour letter

modification time). However, the agency

estimates that in any given year that 85

percent of the 300 annual recalls are

conducted by approximately 50

manufacturers who conduct more than

one safety recall per year on a regular

basis. The remaining 45 recalls per year

(15 percent) are conducted by

manufacturers who conduct recalls on

an infrequent basis. In year one the

agency estimates that all 50 of the

manufacturers who conduct recalls on a

regular basis along with 45

manufacturers who conduct recalls on

an infrequent basis will have to modify

their dealer notification letters, resulting

in 95 out of the 500 affected

manufacturers having to modify their

dealer notification letters in year one. In

years two through ten 45 of the

remaining 405 remaining manufacturers

who conduct recalls infrequently will

have to modify their dealer notification

letters each year. This would result in

an annual hour burden of 47.5 hours for

the first year (95 affected manufacturers

× 1⁄2 hour letter modification time) and

22.5 hours for the second through tenth

years (45 affected manufacturers per

year × 1⁄2 hour letter modification time).

This burden will be a one-time

occurrence because the rule will impose

little or no time burden for recalls after

the first one a manufacturer conducts

after revising its dealer notification

letter. Manufacturers are already

required by statute to notify their

dealers about safety recalls. This rule

does not alter the information that a

manufacturer is now required to provide

to dealers about individual recalls.

The agency expects that for 20 percent

of the safety recalls conducted

annually—or about 60—the

manufacturer will request a delay in

sending dealer notification. The agency

estimates that the average preparation

time for such a letter will be about 1⁄2

hour. Accordingly, the total annual hour

burden hours for preparing letters

requesting a delay in providing dealer

notification will be about 30 hours (60

recalls × 1⁄2 hour per recall).

The agency estimates that the total

annual hour burden on respondents of

the information collection requirement

of this final rule will be 30 hours, plus

a one-time burden of 250 hours, spread

over a period of ten years.

The agency estimates that the hourly

labor cost for manufacturers for revising

the dealer notification letters will be

$50. With the estimated 1⁄2 hour needed

to revise the letter for each of 500

manufacturers, the total labor cost of

revising the dealer notification letters

would be $12,500. Since the number of

safety recalls per year is approximately

300, not all manufacturers will incur the

cost of revising the letter in the same

year. If 95 manufacturers modify their

dealer notification letters in year one

and 45 of the remaining 405

manufacturers modify their dealer

notification letters in years two through

ten, the cost would be spread over a

minimum of ten years. This would

result in an annual cost burden of

$2,375 for the first year and $1,125 per

year for the second through tenth years.

As stated earlier, the burden is likely

to be a one-time occurrence in most

cases, since most manufacturers use

form notifications that will only need to

be revised once. After a manufacturer

has revised its form notification, the

cost of subsequent letters will be no

greater than that for the notification that

a manufacturer is presently required by

statute to send to dealers.

The agency estimates that the labor

cost to manufacturers for preparation of

requests for delay of dealer notification

will also be about $50 per hour. Thus,

for 60 such requests per year, with an

average preparation time of 1⁄2 hour

each, the annual labor cost to

manufacturers will be approximately

$1,500.

In summary, the agency estimates that

the total annual cost to respondents will

be approximately $1,500, plus a onetime-only cost of $12,500, spread over a

period of ten years.

There is no recordkeeping burden

associated with this rulemaking.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Kenneth N. Weinstein,

Associate Administrator For Safety

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 97–31363 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3156]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1973–

1975 Volkswagen Type 181 (‘‘The

Thing’’) Multi-Purpose Passenger

Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1973–1975

Volkswagen Type 181 (‘‘The Thing’’)

multi-purpose passenger vehicles

(MPVs) are eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that 1973–1975

Volkswagen Type 181 (‘‘The Thing’’)

MPVs that were not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards are eligible for importation

into the United States because (1) they

are substantially similar to vehicles that

were originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and that were certified by their

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards, and (2) they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is December 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: U.S. Department of

Transportation Dockets, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. (Docket hours are from 10 am to

5 pm).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards shall be refused admission

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. § 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then