101952 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 73—SELECT AGENTS AND 

TOXINS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 262a. 

■ 2. Section 73.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(7), removing the 

text ‘‘100 mg of Conotoxins’’ and adding 

in its place the text ‘‘200 mg of 

Conotoxins’’; and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(12). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 73.3 HHS select agents and toxins. 

* * * * * 

(b) HHS select agents and toxins 1 are: 

(1) Abrin. 

(2) Bacillus cereus Biovar anthracis.* 

(3) Botulinum neurotoxins.* 

(4) Botulinum neurotoxin producing 

species of Clostridium.* 

(5) Conotoxins (Short, paralytic alpha 

conotoxins containing the following 

amino acid sequence 

X1CCX2PACGX3X4X5X6CX7).2

(6) Coxiella burnetii. 

(7) Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever 

virus. 

(8) Diacetoxyscirpenol. 

(9) Eastern equine encephalitis virus. 

(10) Ebolavirus * 

(11) Francisella tularensis.* 

(12) Lassa fever virus. 

(13) Lujo virus. 

(14) Marburg virus.* 

(15) Monkeypox virus. 

(16) Reconstructed replication 

competent forms of the 1918 pandemic 

influenza A virus containing any 

portion of the coding regions of all eight 

gene segments (Reconstructed 1918 

influenza A virus). 

(17) Ricin. 

(18) Rickettsia prowazekii. 

(19) Severe acute respiratory 

syndrome coronavirus (SARS–CoV). 

(20) SARS–CoV/SARS–CoV–2 

chimeric viruses resulting from any 

deliberate manipulation of SARS–CoV– 

2 to incorporate nucleic acids coding for 

SARS–CoV virulence factors. 

(21) Saxitoxin. 

(22) South American hemorrhagic 

fever virus: Chapare. 

(23) South American hemorrhagic 

fever virus: Guanarito. 

(24) South American hemorrhagic 

fever virus: Junin. 

(25) South American hemorrhagic 

fever virus: Machupo. 

(26) South American hemorrhagic 

fever virus: Sabia. 

(27) Staphylococcal enterotoxins 

(subtypes A,B,C,D,E). 

(28) T–2 toxin. 

(29) Tetrodotoxin. 

(30) Tick-borne encephalitis virus: Far 

Eastern subtype. 

(31) Tick-borne encephalitis virus: 

Siberian subtype. 

(32) Kyasanur Forest disease virus. 

(33) Omsk haemorrhagic fever virus. 

(34) Variola major virus (Smallpox 

virus).* 

(35) Variola minor virus (Alastrim).* 

(36) Yersinia pestis.* 1Please refer to https://

www.selectagents.gov for current 

information on historical or proposed 

nomenclature for the HHS select agents 

on the list. 2C = Cysteine residues are all present 

as disulfides, with the 1st and 3rd 

Cysteine, and the 2nd and 4th Cysteine 

forming specific disulfide bridges; The 

consensus sequence includes known 

toxins a-MI and a-GI (shown above) as 

well as a-GIA, Ac1.1a, a-CnIA, a-CnIB; 

X1 = any amino acid(s) or Des-X; X2 = 

Asparagine or Histidine; P = Proline; A 

= Alanine; G = Glycine; X3 = Arginine 

or Lysine; X4 = Asparagine, Histidine, 

Lysine, Arginine, Tyrosine, 

Phenylalanine or Tryptophan; X5 = 

Tyrosine, Phenylalanine, or 

Tryptophan; X6 = Serine, Threonine, 

Glutamate, Aspartate, Glutamine, or 

Asparagine; X7 = Any amino acid(s) or 

Des X and; ‘‘Des X’’ = ‘‘an amino acid 

does not have to be present at this 

position.’’ For example, if a peptide 

sequence were XCCHPA then the 

related peptide CCHPA would be 

designated as Des-X. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(12) Madariaga virus and any Clade II 

Monkeypox provided that the 

individual or entity can identify that the 

agent is within the exclusion category. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 73.4 is amended by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 73.4 Overlap select agents and toxins. 

* * * * * 

(b) Overlap select agents and toxins 1

are: 

(1) Bacillus anthracis.* 

(2) Bacillus anthracis Pasteur strain. 

(3) Burkholderia mallei.* 

(4) Burkholderia pseudomallei.* 

(5) Hendra virus. 

(6) Nipah virus.* 

(7) Rift Valley fever virus. 

(8) Venezuelan equine encephalitis 

virus. 1Please refer to https://

www.selectagents.gov for current 

information on historical or proposed 

nomenclature for the Overlap select 

agents on the list. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 11, 2024. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29583 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 513 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2023–0014] 

RIN 2127–AL85 

Implementing the Whistleblower 

Provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses an 

important source of motor vehicle safety 

information and fulfills a requirement in 

the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower 

Act (Whistleblower Act) that NHTSA 

promulgate regulations on the 

requirements of the Act, in complement 

to NHTSA’s existing whistleblower 

program. The Whistleblower Act 

authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to pay an award, subject 

to certain limitations, to eligible 

whistleblowers who voluntarily provide 

original information relating to any 

motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, or 

any violation or alleged violation of any 

notification or reporting requirement, 

which is likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury, 

if the information provided leads to the 

successful resolution of a covered 

action. This final rule defines certain 

terms important to the operation of the 

whistleblower program, outlines the 

procedures for submitting original 

information to NHTSA and applying for 

awards, discusses NHTSA’s procedures 

for making decisions on award 

applications, and generally explains the 

scope of the whistleblower program to 

the public and potential whistleblowers. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This rule is effective 

January 16, 2025. 

Petitions for Reconsideration: If you 

wish to submit a petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by January 31, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for 

reconsideration should refer to the 

docket number set forth above (NHTSA– 

2023–0014) and be submitted to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101953 

1See 49 U.S.C. 30172(i). 

2 88 FR 23276 (Apr. 14, 2023). 

3https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA2023-0014-0001. 

Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dylan Voneiff, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (telephone: (202) 

763–8536), email: dylan.voneiff@

dot.gov; or Daniel Rabinovitz, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 

(telephone: (202) 366–5263), email: 

daniel.rabinovitz@dot.gov. The mailing 

address for these officials is: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Final Rule and Responses to Comments 

A. General (§ 513.1) 

B. Definitions (§ 513.2(b)) 

i. Collected Monetary Sanctions 

ii. Contractor 

iii. Covered Action and Related 

Administrative or Judicial Action 

iv. Dealership 

v. Employee 

vi. Independent Knowledge or Analysis 

vii. Original Information 

viii. Potential Whistleblower 

ix. Whistleblower 

C. Procedures for Submitting Original 

Information (§ 513.4) 

D. Confidentiality (§ 513.5) 

E. Prerequisites to the Consideration of an 

Award (§ 513.6) 

F. Whistleblowers Ineligible for an Award 

(§ 513.7) 

G. Provision of False Information (§ 513.8) 

H. Procedures for Making a Claim for a 

Whistleblower Award (§ 513.9) 

I. Award Determinations (§ 513.10) 

J. Appeals of Award Determinations 

(§ 513.11) 

K. Form WB–INFO (Appendix A) 

L. Form WB–RELEASE (Appendix B) 

M. Form WB–AWARD (Appendix C) 

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

The Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public 

Law 114–94, established important 

protections and incentives for motor 

vehicle safety whistleblowers. The 

Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act 

(Whistleblower Act), Sections 24351– 

25352 of the FAST Act, amended the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) to 

authorize the Secretary of 

Transportation (the Secretary) to pay an 

award, subject to certain limitations, to 

eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily 

provide original information relating to 

any motor vehicle defect, 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, which is likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or serious 

physical injury, if that information leads 

to the successful resolution of a covered 

action. Public Law 114–94, § 24351–52, 

129 Stat. 1716 (2015) (codifying 

‘‘Whistleblower incentives and 

protections’’ at 49 U.S.C. 30172). 

In addition to the statutory 

whistleblower protections and 

incentives added by the FAST Act, 

Congress required NHTSA to 

promulgate whistleblower regulations.1

NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), published on April 14, 2023,2

proposed definitions of certain terms 

important to the operation of the 

whistleblower program, outlined the 

procedures for submitting original 

information to NHTSA and applying for 

awards, discussed NHTSA’s procedures 

for making decisions on award 

applications, and generally explained 

the scope of the whistleblower program 

to the public and potential 

whistleblowers. 

NHTSA received 14 comments on the 

NPRM. The proposal garnered 

comments from whistleblower counsel 

and advocates, vehicle manufacturers, 

industry associations, and individuals. 

These comments are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking.3 After 

considering the public comments, the 

Agency is issuing this final rule and 

generally adopting the proposal without 

significant change. 

II. Final Rule and Responses to 

Comments 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed 

adding a new part to its regulations, 49 

CFR part 513, to further implement the 

whistleblower program established by 

the Whistleblower Act and codified at 

49 U.S.C. 30172. The proposal defined 

certain terms important to the operation 

of the whistleblower program, outlined 

the procedures for submitting original 

information to NHTSA and applying for 

awards, discussed the Agency’s 

procedures for making decisions on 

award applications, and generally 

explained the scope of the 

whistleblower program to the public 

and potential whistleblowers. The 

proposed rule sought to help facilitate 

the Agency’s identification of 

information provided by whistleblowers 

to ensure that whistleblowers receive 

the protections accorded under the 

statute and to inform the public of those 

limited circumstances where 

information that could reasonably be 

expected to reveal the identity of the 

whistleblower may be disclosed. 

NHTSA sought comments on all aspects 

of the NPRM. 

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA 

received comments from whistleblower 

counsel and advocates, vehicle 

manufacturers, industry associations, 

and members of the general public. 

Whistleblower counsel and advocates 

submitting comments were Cohen 

Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Cohen 

Milstein); Constantine Cannon LLP 

(Constantine Cannon); Kohn, Kohn, and 

Colapinto (Kohn); and the National 

Whistleblower Center. The individual 

vehicle manufacturers that commented 

were Ford Motor Company (Ford) and 

Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai). The 

industry associations that submitted 

comments were the Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation (Auto 

Innovators) and the vehicle supplier 

industry association Motor & Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (MEMA). 

NHTSA also received comments from 

some individuals. 

Generally, most commenters shared 

their support for the creation of a new 

part to NHTSA’s regulations governing 

NHTSA’s whistleblower program. 

Commenters addressed many aspects of 

the rule, including the definitions of 

certain terms, procedures for submitting 

information and making a claim for an 

award, eligibility requirements for an 

award and award determinations. The 

order of the topics or comments 

discussed in this document is not 

intended to reflect the significance of 

the comment raised or the standing of 

the commenter. Additionally, this 

summary of the comments is intended 

to provide both a general understanding 

of the overall scope and themes raised 

by the commenters, as well as give some 

specific descriptions to provide context. 

Whistleblower counsel and advocates 

generally commented in support of 

broadening the definition of 

‘‘whistleblower,’’ ‘‘independent 

knowledge or analysis,’’ and ‘‘covered 

action.’’ These commenters proposed 

relaxing internal reporting requirements 

and more specifically defining 

protections against retaliation. 

Additionally, these commenters 

proposed removing agency discretion 

for granting an award. 

Generally, vehicle manufacturers and 

industry associations commented in 

support of restricting the definition of 

whistleblower and the definition of 

independent knowledge or analysis. 

Additionally, these commenters 

suggested broadening disqualifications 

for an award. Specifically, these 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101954 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4See 7 U.S.C. 26(a)(3); 12 U.S.C. 5497(b)(d)(1). 

5See In re Hyundai Motor America, Inc. RQ17– 

004, NHTSA Recall No. 15V–568, NHTSA Recall 

No. 17V–226, Consent Order, Para. 21, available at 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 

documents/rq17-004_hyundai_consent_order_

executed_11272020.pdf (consent order including 

performance obligations to invest in safety data 

analytics and development of a testing laboratory); 

see also In Re Daimler Trucks North America LLC, 

AQ18–002 Consent Order, Para. 12(c), available at 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 

documents/aq18-002_consent_order_executed.pdf 

(consent order including performance obligations to 

invest in safety data analytics infrastructure). 

commenters proposed stricter internal 

reporting requirements and proposed 

eliminating exceptions to these 

requirements. 

Finally, most individual commenters 

expressed general support for the goals 

and content of the proposed rule. 

Individual commenters focused on the 

definition of whistleblower and the 

definition of employee. Additionally, 

individual commenters expressed 

concerns about the formalized process 

to be eligible for an award and the 

Agency’s discretion in granting an 

award. 

This final rule generally adopts the 

proposal without substantive change. In 

response to comments, NHTSA has 

clarified in this final rule the timing for 

submitting an award claim. In the 

NPRM, NHTSA proposed a potential 

whistleblower must file a claim for a 

whistleblower award by completing the 

WB–AWARD form and submitting it to 

NHTSA no later than ninety (90) 

calendar days from the date of the 

Notice of Covered Action. This final 

rule specifies that if the ninetieth day 

falls on a weekend or federal holiday, 

the claim deadline is the next business 

day. NHTSA has also clarified in this 

final rule that the criminal exclusion is 

limited to criminal violations decided 

by a United States federal or state 

court—not by a foreign tribunal. 

While NHTSA also agreed with many 

other issues raised by commenters, for 

the reasons discussed below, it does not 

believe those issues warrant additional 

or changed regulatory text. After 

consideration of the comments, NHTSA 

believes this final rule appropriately 

balances the need to provide additional 

guidance on aspects of the statute and 

Agency’s processes, while leaving room 

for flexibility and case-by-case 

considerations. As NHTSA has learned 

through working with numerous 

whistleblowers since enactment of the 

FAST Act in 2015, each matter involves 

unique circumstances. NHTSA will 

continue to consider these issues as it 

implements its whistleblower program 

with the benefit of these new rules and 

will make future refinements through 

rulemaking or guidance as necessary 

and appropriate. 

NHTSA maintains information about 

its whistleblower program on its 

website, https://www.nhtsa.gov/lawsregulations/whistleblower-program, 

which it will continue to update with 

additional information and 

developments. 

A. General (§ 513.1) 

Proposed rule § 513.1 provided a 

general description of NHTSA’s 

whistleblower program. Specifically, it 

stated that Part 513 describes the 

whistleblower program that the Agency 

has established to implement the Motor 

Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act, 49 

U.S.C. 30172; explained the procedures 

that the potential whistleblower will 

need to follow to be eligible for an 

award; and discusses the circumstances 

under which information that may 

reasonably be expected to reveal the 

identity of a whistleblower may be 

disclosed by NHTSA. Additionally, it 

cautioned potential whistleblowers to 

read the procedures carefully because 

failure to take required steps within the 

time frames described could result in 

disqualification from receiving an 

award. 

NHTSA received no comments on 

proposed § 513.1. NHTSA is adopting 

§ 513.1 as proposed. 

B. Definitions (§ 513.2(b)) 

i. Collected Monetary Sanctions 

The NPRM contained a proposed 

definition clarifying that the term 

‘‘collected monetary sanctions’’ means 

monies, including penalties and 

interest, ordered or agreed to be paid 

and that have been collected by the 

United States pursuant to the authority 

in 49 U.S.C. 30165 or under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 30170. This 

proposed definition sought consistency 

with the express terms of the statute, 

which provides: ‘‘Any amount payable 

[to a whistleblower] . . . shall be paid 

from the monetary sanctions collected, 

and any monetary sanctions so collected 

shall be available for such payment.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 30172(b)(2). 

Prior to publication of the NPRM, 

stakeholders advocated for court 

ordered restitution to parties other than 

the United States to be considered 

monetary sanctions under the 

regulation. The NPRM proposed that 

‘‘collected monetary sanctions’’ cannot 

reasonably be construed to include such 

restitution intended to directly 

compensate victims and other affected 

third parties (as opposed to penalties 

paid to the United States). 

Commenters Kohn and Constantine 

Cannon proposed that Congress 

intended for ‘‘collected monetary 

sanctions’’ to include restitution 

intended to directly compensate victims 

or other third parties. Kohn suggested 

that restitution required by statute is 

congressional allocation of monies owed 

to the United States and thus should be 

considered money collected and 

allocated by the United States. Kohn 

proposed that Congress could have 

decided to allocate those funds in a 

different way and thus any sanction 

paid as the result of an enforcement 

action must be considered a ‘‘collected 

monetary sanction.’’ 

NHTSA declines to change its 

proposed definition. The FAST Act, 

section 31202, appropriates to the 

Highway Trust Fund amounts 

equivalent to ‘‘covered motor vehicle 

safety penalty collections.’’ The section 

defines ‘‘covered motor vehicle safety 

penalty collections’’ as any amount 

collected in connection with a civil 

penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165, 

‘‘reduced by any award authorized by 

the Secretary of Transportation to be 

paid to any person in connection with 

information provided by such person 

related to a violation of Chapter 301 of 

such title which is a predicate to such 

civil penalty.’’ Based on this section of 

the FAST Act, it is NHTSA’s view that 

whistleblowers are paid out of the 

money collected from a paid Safety Act 

penalty or fine, which is further 

discussed below with respect to the 

definition of ‘‘covered action.’’ The 

Safety Act does not give NHTSA 

authority to reallocate money collected 

as restitution intended to directly 

compensate victims or other third 

parties. Additionally, Congress neither 

created a victim allocation fund like that 

created by the Dodd-Frank Act nor did 

Congress include restitution in its 

definition of ‘‘monetary sanctions’’ as it 

did in the Dodd-Frank Act.4 It is 

NHTSA’s view that ‘‘collected monetary 

sanctions’’ does not include restitution 

intended to directly compensate victims 

or other third parties because those 

funds are not ‘‘collected’’ by NHTSA. 

Additionally, Kohn proposed that any 

monetary performance obligations, 

including agreements to pay a certain 

amount towards a performance 

obligation,5 should be included in the 

definition of collected monetary 

sanctions. Kohn suggested that 

exclusion of money used to satisfy 

performance obligations would give 

discretion to NHTSA to manipulate a 

whistleblower’s eligibility and the 

amount of an award. Kohn asserted that 

this exclusion sends the wrong message 

and is counter to legislative intent 

because it gives money back to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101955 

6See In re Kia Motors America, RQ17–003, 

NHTSA Recall 17V–224, Consent Order, Para. 26, 

available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ 

nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/rq17-003_kia_

consent_order_executed_11272020.pdf. 

wrongdoer and blocks a whistleblower 

from obtaining a larger award. 

NHTSA does not find this suggestion 

persuasive. NHTSA does not view 

performance obligations as constituting 

a ‘‘collected’’ monetary sanction. 

Additionally, NHTSA disagrees that 

exclusion of money used to satisfy 

performance obligations is in any way a 

pretext for allowing NHTSA to block 

whistleblowers from receiving a larger 

award. Unlike ‘‘collected’’ monetary 

sanctions, money used to satisfy 

performance obligations may be an 

important component of a resolution, 

helping to ensure that a regulated entity 

sufficiently addresses ongoing and 

sustainable compliance with the Safety 

Act and NHTSA’s safety regulations. If 

there is a collection of the performance 

obligation amounts in the form of a 

monetary payment to the United States 

government as a result of a violation of 

a consent order, NHTSA agrees that 

amount is then considered a ‘‘collected’’ 

monetary sanction. Likewise, in those 

cases where the agreement specifies that 

if the total performance amount is not 

spent and the company is liable for a 

payment to NHTSA for the balance of 

the unspent performance amount,6 and 

the company pays such amount to 

NHTSA, that is considered a ‘‘collected’’ 

monetary sanction. 

Similarly, ‘‘deferred penalties’’ or 

‘‘abeyance amounts’’ agreed to be paid 

as a monetary penalty in the event that 

the company violates the consent order, 

the Safety Act, or the regulations 

thereunder are ‘‘collected monetary 

sanctions’’ if and when the deferred 

penalty or abeyance amount is actually 

paid to the United States government. 

These views are consistent with the 

statutory requirement that: ‘‘Any 

amount payable [to a whistleblower] 

. . . shall be paid from the monetary 

sanctions collected, and any monetary 

sanctions so collected shall be available 

for such payment.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30172(b)(2). Penalties allocated to 

performance obligations and deferred 

penalties that have not been paid to the 

United States government are neither 

‘‘collected’’ nor ‘‘available for [ ] 

payment.’’ 

ii. Contractor 

The NPRM contained a proposed 

definition of ‘‘contractor’’ as an 

individual presently or formerly 

providing goods or services to a motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership pursuant to a contract. 

NHTSA continues to believe that the 

definition must include both present 

and former contractors to maximize the 

reach and effectiveness of the 

whistleblower program. For example, if 

a company terminates a contractor after 

the contractor reports safety issues, it 

would not serve the purpose of the 

Whistleblower Act to bar such a 

contractor from an award simply 

because the contractor no longer works 

for the company. Additionally, whether 

a contractor is currently or formerly 

employed has no bearing on whether 

the contractor has information that 

might assist NHTSA’s vehicle safety 

work. 

One commenter asked if the above 

definition of ‘‘contractor’’ includes 

independent contractors. The definition 

is inclusive of independent contractors 

and there is no restriction or minimum 

on how long they worked for or with the 

motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership. 

iii. Covered Action and Related 

Administrative or Judicial Action 

NHTSA’s proposed definitions of 

‘‘covered action’’ and ‘‘related 

administrative or judicial action’’ are 

based on the definition found in 49 

U.S.C. 30172(a)(1). The proposed 

definition of ‘‘covered action’’ includes 

any administrative or judicial action, 

including any related administrative or 

judicial action brought by the Secretary, 

NHTSA, or the U.S. Attorney General 

(Attorney General) under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, or the regulations in 

Chapter 301 that in the aggregate results 

in monetary sanctions exceeding 

$1,000,000. Additionally, the proposed 

rule explains that the more than 

$1,000,000 threshold can be satisfied if 

the total amount of monetary sanctions 

paid by multiple defendants or parties 

and collected by the United States totals 

more than $1,000,000 from the covered 

action. The proposed definition of 

‘‘related administrative or judicial 

action’’ includes ‘‘an action that was 

brought under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 by 

the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, or the 

Agency, and is based on the original 

information provided by the 

whistleblower.’’ 

NHTSA explained in the NPRM that 

since the statute specifies that an action 

is brought by the Secretary or Attorney 

General ‘‘under this chapter,’’ the 

statute is referring solely to 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 and the regulatory 

obligations promulgated under 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301, as the 

Whistleblower Act was codified as part 

of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

Some commenters supported 

NHTSA’s proposed definition. Hyundai 

agreed that covered actions and related 

administrative and judicial actions 

should arise directly under Chapter 301 

and the parenthetical phrase ‘‘including 

any related administrative and judicial 

action’’ does not encompass actions 

outside of Chapter 301. 

Conversely, some commenters 

disagreed with this definition and 

proposed ‘‘related administrative and 

judicial action’’ to include any related 

administrative or judicial action, even 

those not under Chapter 301. 

Constantine Cannon asserted that 

interpreting ‘‘related’’ action to mean a 

subset of ‘‘any administrative or judicial 

action’’ makes the phrase superfluous 

and pointed to other areas of the statute 

that define related action to include 

actions taken outside of Chapter 301. 

NHTSA disagrees that its reading of 

the statute renders the word ‘‘related’’ 

superfluous. An example of related 

actions under the Vehicle Safety Act 

might be a civil penalty action for a 

reporting violation of 49 U.S.C. 30166 

and a criminal action with respect to the 

same reporting, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30170(a). Moreover, as stated in the 

NPRM, despite 49 U.S.C. 

30172(c)(2)(A)’s mandate that no award 

shall be made to any whistleblower who 

is convicted of a criminal violation 

‘‘related to the covered action’’ for 

which the whistleblower would 

otherwise receive an award, NHTSA 

does not believe the use of the word 

‘‘related’’ in that context is relevant to 

the scope of a related action under 49 

U.S.C. 30172(a)(1). The purpose of the 

criminal conviction provision in section 

30172(c)(2)(A) is to ensure that a 

whistleblower cannot benefit from their 

own wrongdoing. That provision is not 

limited to a related action ‘‘under this 

chapter’’ and thus has a different 

(broader) scope based on the plain text 

of the statute. 

The National Whistleblower Center 

proposed regulatory language that 

covered actions under the 

Whistleblower Act include federal 

enforcement actions outside of Chapter 

301. The National Whistleblower Center 

also proposed a requirement that 

NHTSA work and coordinate with the 

U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC), the Internal Revenue Service, the 

U.S Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC), the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Federal Trade Commission, and/or the 

U.S. Department of Justice on any 

matters related to the Whistleblower Act 

that may also implicate the violation of 

laws enforced by these agencies. To 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101956 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

7See 7 U.S.C. 26(a)(5); 15 U.S.C. 78u–6(a)(5). 

8Similarly, a few commenters also proposed that 

the barriers to NHTSA’s acquisition of information 

from other agencies, such as information regarding 

whether whistleblower information was used to 

bring an administrative action, cannot restrict the 

definition of ‘‘covered action.’’ Again, commenters 

point to the SEC and CFTC’s ability to obtain 

information from other agencies to support this 

assertion. NHTSA believes the plain language of its 

governing statute is determinative of the definition 

of ‘‘covered action’’ and, as described, unlike the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Whistleblower Act does not 

mandate coordination with agencies other than 

DOJ, when necessary. 

9NHTSA’s first whistleblower award was given to 

a whistleblower who provided information that led 

to enforcement actions resulting in consent orders 

with two companies (Hyundai Motor America, Inc. 

and Kia Motors America, Inc.). See https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-02/ 

whistleblower-decision-letter-RQ17-003-Kia-RQ17- 

004-Hyundai_web.pdf. 

10Section 30170(a)(1) provides for criminal 

liability for falsifying or withholding information. It 

states: ‘‘A person who violates section 1001 of title 

18 with respect to the reporting requirements of 

section 30166, with the specific intention of 

misleading the Secretary with respect to motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment safety related 

defects that have caused death or serious bodily 

injury to an individual (as defined in section 

1365(g)(3)[1] of title 18), shall be subject to criminal 

penalties of a fine under title 18, or imprisoned for 

not more than 15 years, or both.’’ 

further support these proposals, a few 

commenters pointed to the SEC and 

CFTC’s ability to include actions 

brought by other agencies under their 

definitions of ‘‘covered action.’’ NHTSA 

does not find these proposals 

persuasive. 

Unlike the Whistleblower Act, the 

SEC and CFTC’s governing statutes 

include a definition of ‘‘related 

action.’’ 7 Both of these definitions of 

‘‘related action’’ specifically incorporate 

by reference actions brought by other 

specified, federal agencies. The 

Whistleblower Act does not contain a 

definition of related action or any 

reference to actions other than those 

brought under Chapter 301.8 ‘‘[R]elated 

action’’ under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 is 

given effect by considering two actions 

under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. For 

example, if NHTSA pursues two 

separate enforcement actions for 

violations of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, or 

regulations thereunder, against two 

different companies (for example, a 

supplier and a vehicle manufacturer) 

based on the same facts provided by a 

whistleblower, in that case, the two 

separate actions would be related.9

NHTSA continues to believe that the 

plain language of the statute is clear and 

that NHTSA does not have discretion 

under the statute to consider actions 

taken under other statutes (such as 

separate criminal statutes) as part of a 

‘‘covered action,’’ even if such actions 

involve vehicle safety issues and/or are 

based on facts common to an action 

taken under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

Kohn outlined concerns that the 

Department of Justice has a historical 

preference for bringing actions under 

Title 18 and the exclusion of monetary 

sanctions from actions brought under 

Title 18 will dissuade whistleblowers 

from coming forward. Similarly, Cohen 

Milstein, along with other commenters, 

voiced concerns that a whistleblower 

would lose incentive to report if an 

award is dependent on how the 

government chooses to pursue a 

wrongdoer. Although NHTSA 

acknowledges these concerns, the plain 

language of the statute does not allow 

NHTSA to include every action under 

Title 18 or otherwise broaden the reach 

of the statute. 

Additionally, a few commenters 

argued the specific fund from which 

NHTSA is obligated to pay a 

whistleblower should not constrict the 

definition of ‘‘covered action.’’ 

However, NHTSA does not believe that 

the existence of a particular fund is 

what is restricting the definition of 

‘‘covered action.’’ Rather, NHTSA 

continues to believe that a 

whistleblower cannot be issued an 

award percentage of monies paid by a 

company for criminal violations of 

statutes other than the Safety Act. Such 

a reading would be inconsistent with 

the requirement of the statute that the 

action be brought ‘‘under this chapter.’’ 

For example, a criminal action for wire 

fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 is not an 

action under the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301). However, a criminal 

action brought under 49 U.S.C. 30170, 

the criminal penalties provision of the 

Safety Act, would constitute an action 

‘‘under this chapter.’’ 10

In sum, a covered action does not 

include any action brought by the U.S. 

Department of Justice under any statute 

other 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

iv. Dealership 

NHTSA proposed to define 

‘‘dealership’’ using a broader definition 

than the statutory definition of ‘‘dealer’’ 

found in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(2). 

Specifically, NHTSA proposed a 

‘‘dealership’’ means a person selling and 

distributing motor vehicles or motor 

vehicle equipment primarily to 

purchasers that in good faith purchase 

the vehicles or equipment other than for 

resale. The definition is not limited to 

a dealership selling new motor vehicles, 

as in the statutory definition of 

‘‘dealer.’’ For example, an employee of 

a used car dealer could identify and 

bring to the Agency’s attention a safety 

defect in a vehicle that has not been 

timely recalled. 

Auto Innovators proposed that 

dealership should only include those 

with a franchise relationship to the 

manufacturer and whose products are 

being reported to NHTSA. Auto 

Innovators stated it does not believe 

dealerships without a franchise 

relationship will likely possess original 

information. 

NHTSA disagrees. A dealership 

without a franchise relationship can 

obtain information gained from 

experiences, communications, and 

observations. For example, individuals 

who work at a dealership without a 

franchise relationship work with motor 

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 

on daily basis and receive purchaser 

complaints and ready vehicles and 

vehicle parts for sale. Additionally, 

some of these dealerships specialize in 

a particular make and model of a car 

and would be able to detect issues with 

the motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

parts that are likely to cause a risk to 

motor vehicle safety. Therefore, NHTSA 

disagrees with Auto Innovators’ 

proposal and believes a limited 

definition of dealership would not serve 

the purpose of the Whistleblower Act 

and would inhibit the reporting of 

potential safety defects that are likely to 

cause unreasonable risk of death or 

serious physical injury. 

v. Employee 

The proposed definition of 

‘‘employee’’ defined ‘‘employee’’ as an 

individual presently or formerly 

employed by a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership. The proposed definition 

included both present and former 

employees to maximize the reach and 

effectiveness of the whistleblower 

program. As noted above, it would not 

serve the purpose of the Whistleblower 

Act to bar a former employee from an 

award simply because he or she no 

longer works for the motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership. 

The comments all favored the 

proposed definition of employee to 

include owners of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership. However, Auto Innovators 

proposed owners of these businesses 

should not be allowed to benefit if they 

are reporting their own misconduct or 

the misconduct of the business 

enterprise that they own. Constantine 

Cannon addressed Auto Innovators 

concern by pointing to proposed 

§ 513.7, on whistleblower ineligibility, 

which bars whistleblowers who 

deliberately or substantially contribute 

to the alleged violation. NHTSA agrees 

with this view. Further, Auto Innovators 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101957 

11See Yang, Heekyong, Hyundai Motor 

whistleblower, $24 mln in hand, plans to help 

others speak up, Reuters, Nov. 14, 2021, https://

www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ 

hyundai-motor-whistleblower-24-mln-hand-planshelp-others-speak-up-2021-11-12/; see also NHTSA 

Makes Its First Ever Whistleblower Award, Nov. 9, 

2021, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/firstwhistleblower-award. 

proposed a definition of owner that 

specifies whether the term owner 

includes anyone with an ownership 

interest in a business regardless of the 

size of their interest or the size of their 

share of a publicly traded company. 

NHTSA disagrees with a need to define 

‘‘owner.’’ Rather, it is NHTSA’s position 

that an owner in this context is 

generally someone who both owns at 

least part of a company and holds a 

permanent employment position or 

manages at least one employee (e.g., an 

owner does not need to be involved in 

a company’s day-to-day operations, but 

instead can have some sort of limited 

managerial relationship with the person 

who manages a company’s day-to-day 

operations). 

For example, as proposed by Kohn, 

owners of dealerships are in an 

excellent position to gather customer 

complaints that have a significant 

impact on public safety. Similarly, 

NHTSA believes partial owners of 

businesses who manage employees and 

oversee operations can learn about and 

witness safety defects within the supply 

chain that were not otherwise reported 

to NHTSA. 

Constantine Cannon also proposed 

the definition of employee should 

include employees of an automaker’s 

foreign parent company. NHTSA agrees 

but does not find a need to change the 

proposed definition to encompass these 

individuals. The definition of 

whistleblower under 49 U.S.C. 

30172(a)(6) is not limited to those in the 

United States. The definition in 49 

U.S.C. 30172(a)(6) specifies that a 

whistleblower is an individual who, 

among other requirements, is an 

‘‘employee or contractor of a motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership.’’ The definitions of motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, and 

dealership found in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are 

also not restricted to only businesses 

based in the United States. Thousands 

of motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

parts are imported and used in the 

United States every year. Potential 

whistleblowers who are currently or 

formerly employed outside the United 

States might possess vital information 

related to potential safety defects which 

are likely to cause unreasonable risk of 

death or serious physical injury. For 

example, NHTSA relied upon 

information from and issued an award 

to a whistleblower working in South 

Korea who supplied NHTSA with 

information in connection to Hyundai 

Motor America, Inc. and Kia Motors 

America, Inc.’s violations of the Safety 

Act.11 Therefore, it is imperative for 

NHTSA’s safety mission to include 

those employed outside the United 

States within the scope of the definition 

of ‘‘employee.’’ NHTSA has not limited 

the definition of employee to 

individuals within the United States 

and does not find a change to be 

necessary. 

Finally, individual commenters 

proposed including relatives of 

employees and contractors and 

specifying whether there is a minimum 

time requirement to be considered an 

employee. NHTSA does not believe that 

relatives of employees and contractors 

meet the definition of ‘‘whistleblower’’ 

found in 49 U.S.C. 30172(a)(6). Congress 

specifically and unambiguously defined 

a ‘‘whistleblower’’ as an employee or 

contractor and made no mention of 

those related to an employee or 

contractor. NHTSA also does not believe 

that there needs to be a minimum time 

requirement that an individual worked 

at a motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership for that 

individual to be considered an 

employee. Since no time limitation was 

specified in the definition, NHTSA 

finds a change to be unnecessary. 

vi. Independent Knowledge or Analysis 

NHTSA proposed a definition of 

‘‘independent knowledge or analysis’’ 

because Section 30172(a)(3)(A) states 

that original information is information 

that ‘‘is derived from independent 

knowledge or analysis of an individual’’ 

(emphasis added). The proposed 

definition defines ‘‘independent 

knowledge’’ as factual information in 

the potential whistleblower’s possession 

that is not generally known or available 

to the public and is not already known 

to NHTSA. Publicly available sources 

include both sources that are widely 

disseminated, such as corporate press 

releases and filings, and media reports, 

as well as sources that, while not widely 

disseminated, are generally available to 

the public, such as court filings and 

documents obtained through Freedom 

of Information Act requests. 

The proposed definition does not 

require that a potential whistleblower 

have direct, first-hand knowledge of 

potential violations. The proposed 

definition states that the potential 

whistleblower may gain independent 

knowledge from the potential 

whistleblower’s experiences, 

communications and observations in the 

potential whistleblower’s business or 

social interactions. 

MEMA disagreed with the proposed 

definition’s inclusion of those without 

direct, first-hand knowledge of potential 

violations. MEMA proposed that those 

without first-hand knowledge would be 

unable to assess a potential safety 

violation resulting in the circumvention 

of internal processes and 

communications between part 

manufacturers and original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs). NHTSA 

disagrees. Those without ‘‘first-hand’’ 

knowledge, such as an employee of a 

used-car dealership, may still have the 

requisite expertise to conduct their own 

personal analysis and identify a 

potential safety violation. They might 

get regular complaints about a particular 

issue or conduct repairs related to a 

particular issue on a regular basis. 

However, only those individuals who 

are employees or contactors of a motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership could be eligible for an 

award if they meet the other 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30172 and 

regulations thereunder. 

The proposed definition of 

‘‘independent knowledge or analysis’’ 

further provided that information will 

not be considered to have been derived 

from an individual’s ‘‘independent 

knowledge or analysis’’ in some 

situations. 

The first proposed exclusion was for 

information that was obtained solely 

through a communication that is subject 

to attorney-client privilege or the work 

product doctrine. When describing the 

proposed exclusion, the NPRM 

recognized that there are some 

exceptions to various privileges, such as 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) 

(providing that materials prepared in 

anticipation of litigation may be 

discovered by an adverse party if the 

party shows ‘‘substantial need’’ and 

‘‘undue hardship’’), and the crime-fraud 

exception to the attorney-client 

privilege. 

Several commenters proposed that all 

information that would be admissible in 

an administrative, civil, or criminal 

proceeding should be considered 

information upon which a reward can 

be based. Kohn supported this by stating 

NHTSA’s proposed exclusion will 

encourage corporations to abuse 

attorney-client privilege. Auto 

Innovators proposed that NHTSA 

should establish a process to isolate 

information while a privileged 

information determination is made. The 

National Whistleblower Center 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101958 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12 D.C. Bar, Formal Op. 318 (2002) (discussing 

ethical obligations when privileged material may 

have been taken without authority). 

13NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2015– 

01: Recommended Best Practices for Protective 

Orders and Settlement Agreements in Civil 

Litigation, 81 FR 13026 (Mar. 11, 2016). 

proposed a definition excluding 

information subject to attorney-client or 

work-product privilege unless it would 

otherwise be permitted by applicable 

state attorney conduct rules or rules 

approved by the Secretary. Similarly, 

Constantine Cannon proposed that 

NHTSA use the same definition used by 

the SEC and CFTC, which includes 

exclusions for communications subject 

to attorney-client privilege or in 

connection with the legal representation 

that a putative whistleblower has been 

providing to an employer or firm, unless 

disclosure is authorized by the 

applicable federal or state attorney 

conduct rules. 

NHTSA has determined that, 

pursuant to the District of Columbia 

Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys 

in its Office of the Chief Counsel may 

not review materials protected by 

attorney-client privilege. This 

determination is based on our 

understanding of the District of 

Columbia Bar’s Ethics Opinion 318: 

Disclosure of Privileged Material by 

Third Party.12 The exclusion is not 

intended to preclude an individual who 

has independent knowledge or analysis 

of potential Safety Act violations from 

becoming a whistleblower if that person 

chooses to consult with an attorney or 

is an attorney. Rather, this exclusion 

prohibits an employee or contractor 

from revealing attorney-client privileged 

or work product information that they 

learned of solely through a privileged 

communication. Thus, NHTSA believes 

the proposed definition remains 

appropriate and is adopting it in this 

final rule. 

The second proposed exclusion is for 

information that was obtained in a 

means or manner that is determined by 

a United States federal court or state 

court to violate applicable federal or 

state criminal law. 

Some commenters disagreed with 

excluding information if the information 

was obtained in a means or manner 

found to be illegal by a state court. The 

National Whistleblower Center 

proposed language that limits excluded 

information to information obtained by 

means or in a manner determined by a 

United States federal court to violate 

federal or state criminal law. Kohn 

proposed removing the exclusion of 

information obtained in violation of 

state law because of the possibility of 

preemption and the differences between 

state and federal law. 

NHTSA disagrees with this proposal. 

NHTSA believes information obtained 

in violation of state law should be 

excluded. NHTSA does not want to 

encourage employees to obtain 

information for NHTSA by any means or 

manner. For example, theft is generally 

a charge brought under state law rather 

than federal law. NHTSA does not want 

to encourage potential whistleblowers to 

illegally obtain information. In these 

cases, preemption would generally not 

be at issue. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA urged potential 

whistleblowers to use caution when 

providing NHTSA with information 

covered by a legally binding order or a 

confidentiality agreement. NHTSA’s 

NPRM recommended that those 

potential whistleblowers consult with 

private counsel before submitting such 

information to NHTSA. 

Kohn disagreed with the Agency’s 

proposed suggestion for potential 

whistleblowers under binding 

nondisclosure agreements to consult 

private counsel before providing 

NHTSA with information. Kohn 

proposed this suggestion will make 

whistleblowers think that they are 

forced to hire private counsel. Similarly, 

Kohn proposed that the regulations 

should prohibit private contracts, 

employment agreements or settlement 

agreements from interfering with a 

whistleblower’s disclosure to NHTSA. 

NHTSA disagrees with Kohn on these 

issues. 

NHTSA is obligated to adhere to and 

support a whistleblower’s statutory 

protections, but NHTSA’s attorneys do 

not represent whistleblowers. 

Whistleblowers should be aware that 

‘‘[t]o the extent protective orders, 

settlement agreements, or other 

confidentiality provisions prohibit 

motor vehicle safety-related information 

from being transmitted to NHTSA, such 

limitations are contrary to established 

principles of public policy and law, 

including Rule 26 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and its state 

corollaries which require a showing of 

good cause to impose 

confidentiality.’’ 13 However, NHTSA 

cannot advise a whistleblower that the 

agreement they are bound by lacks good 

cause to impose confidentiality. 

Therefore, if a whistleblower needs legal 

advice, they should obtain their own 

private legal counsel. NHTSA continues 

to suggest that potential whistleblowers 

who are aware of material protected by 

a protective order should not provide 

the documents subject to the order to 

NHTSA; whistleblowers should inform 

NHTSA about the existence of such 

documents without revealing the 

substance of the material under the 

protective order. 

The NPRM also asked if commenters 

had suggestions for additional 

exclusions, including those similar to 

the exclusions under ‘‘independent 

knowledge’’ or ‘‘independent analysis’’ 

within the SEC and CFTC whistleblower 

programs. One example of a potential 

exclusion mentioned in the NPRM was 

excluding information obtained solely 

because the potential whistleblower is 

an officer, director, trustee or partner of 

an entity or a person whose principal 

duties involve compliance or internal 

audit responsibilities. The National 

Whistleblower Center (NWC) proposed 

that an officer, director, trustee, partner 

of an entity, or auditor of or within an 

entity who learns about information 

from another individual within the 

entity should generally be excluded 

from the rule because they lack original 

information from independent 

knowledge. Specifically, the NWC 

proposed that these individuals should 

be excluded from the rule if they 

learned about the subject information 

via an entity’s normal processes for 

identifying, reporting, and addressing 

potential violations. Additionally, the 

NWC proposed that individuals whose 

duties include audits and internal 

investigations into possible violations 

also be excluded from the rule. 

Conversely, Kohn agreed with 

NHTSA’s proposal to not exclude a 

potential whistleblower solely because 

the potential whistleblower was or is an 

officer, director, trustee or partner. 

Additionally, Kohn supported NHTSA’s 

proposal to include those participating 

in or observing internal audit processes. 

Kohn reasoned that auditors can be 

pressured to water down reports and 

this allowance would deter companies 

from enforcing this pressure. After 

consideration of the comments, NHTSA 

has decided it should not exclude 

officers, directors, trustees or partners. 

NHTSA believes officers, directors, 

trustees, partners, and persons whose 

principal duties involve compliance or 

internal audit responsibilities all have 

the potential to learn important 

information concerning vehicle safety. 

Furthermore, NHTSA disagrees with the 

NWC’s proposed exclusion because 

NHTSA believes such individuals may 

have information that is not generally 

known or available to the public and is 

not already known to NHTSA. 

Excluding such individuals could 

prevent such valuable safety 

information from reaching the Agency. 

Consequently, NHTSA will not exclude 

such individuals. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101959 

14 Kohn, again, noted their disagreement with the 

Agency’s proposed definition of independent 

knowledge. See NHTSA’s analysis of this comment 

under the discussion of ‘‘Independent Knowledge 

or Analysis.’’ 

15This definition of whistleblower follows the 

definition found in 49 U.S.C. 30172(a)(6) except 

that the proposed rule uses the term ‘‘Agency’’ and 

clarifies that ‘‘any violation or alleged violation of 

any notification or reporting requirements of this 

chapter’’ refers to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and 

regulations promulgated thereunder for clarity. 

However, as discussed above, any 

illegal action by these persons to obtain 

the information excludes them from 

receiving a whistleblower award. 

vii. Original Information 

Proposed § 513.2(b) defined ‘‘original 

information’’ as information that is 

derived from the independent 

knowledge or analysis of an individual, 

is not known to the Secretary or Agency 

from any other source, unless the 

individual is the original source of the 

information; and is not exclusively 

derived from an allegation made in a 

judicial or an administrative action, in 

a governmental report, a hearing, an 

audit, or an investigation, or from the 

news media, unless the individual is a 

source of the information. Proposed 

§ 513.2(b) required that original 

information be provided to the Agency 

for the first time after December 4, 2015. 

Thomas Kowalick commented, 

disagreeing with the Agency’s proposed 

prohibition on information provided to 

the Agency prior to December 4, 2015. 

However, December 4, 2015 is the date 

on which Congress enacted the FAST 

Act. Consequently, this limitation in 

513.2(b) is based on the rule of 

construction contained in Section 

24352(b) of the FAST Act. Other 

commenters supported NHTSA’s 

proposed limitation.14

The Agency also is making minor 

edits to the definition of ‘‘original 

information that leads to a successful 

resolution’’ for clarity. 

viii. Potential Whistleblower 

To differentiate from the statutory 

definition of ‘‘whistleblower’’ that 

contains a number of prerequisites that 

need to be met to fall under the 

definition, NHTSA proposed the term 

‘‘potential whistleblower’’ for the sake 

of clarity. The proposed definition of 

potential whistleblower refers to an 

employee or contractor of a motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership submitting information to the 

Agency in accordance with and 

pursuant to Part 513. Potential 

whistleblowers will be treated as 

receiving the whistleblower protections 

set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30172(f). 

Commenters agreed with NHTSA’s 

proposal to treat potential 

whistleblowers as subject to the 

protections in 49 U.S.C. 30172(f). Kohn 

disagreed with limiting a potential 

whistleblower to an employee or 

contractor of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership. Kohn proposed that anyone 

who submits information to NHTSA 

should be considered a potential 

whistleblower and NHTSA’s 

determination with respect to whether 

or not a potential whistleblower is 

eligible should be a separate analysis. 

NHTSA disagrees with this proposal. 

NHTSA will not be able to determine 

whether a person is a ‘‘whistleblower’’ 

until, at the very least, that person 

submits information to the Agency and 

it is evaluated. 49 U.S.C. 30172 limits 

whistleblower protections to ‘‘any 

employee or contractor of a motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership.’’ NHTSA does not have the 

authority to broaden that definition and 

does not want to encourage people who 

do not qualify to submit information to 

NHTSA’s whistleblower program. For 

example, a significant quantity of 

information that NHTSA receives on 

vehicle safety issues comes from 

ordinary vehicle owners and that 

information is not appropriate for 

handling under the whistleblower 

program. NHTSA cannot reasonably 

consider anyone who submits 

information to the agency to be a 

whistleblower, and doing so would 

divert resources from and adversely 

impact legitimate whistleblowers. The 

definition of potential whistleblower as 

requiring someone to meet the basic 

requirement of being an employee or 

contractor of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership, in accordance with the 

statutory definition, appropriately 

protects those individuals for whom the 

statutory protections were designed. 

ix. Whistleblower 

Proposed § 513.2(b) defined 

‘‘whistleblower’’ as any employee or 

contractor of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership who voluntarily provides to 

the Agency original information relating 

to any motor vehicle defect, 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement set forth in 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301 or regulations 

thereunder, which is likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or serious 

physical injury.15

Commenters generally supported 

NHTSA’s proposed definition of 

whistleblower. Auto Innovators 

proposed that the regulatory definition 

should not include entities not covered 

by the statutory definition of 

whistleblower such as advocacy groups, 

media reporters, industry trade 

associations, or third parties. NHTSA 

has concluded that the proposed scope 

was appropriate and consistent with the 

statute. While NHTSA requested 

comment on whether employees of 

trade groups should be included in the 

definition, after consideration of the 

comments, NHTSA believes that such 

an expansion would not be consistent 

with the statutory definition. However, 

as NHTSA explained in the NPRM, 

employees and contractors working for 

companies within a trade group’s 

membership are eligible to be 

whistleblowers, provided that they fall 

into the definition of motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership. 

Thomas Kowalick proposed that the 

definition should only include 

individuals and not entities. NHTSA 

agrees. The proposed definition and 

statutory definition uses the word 

‘‘employee,’’ which denotes a single 

person, and based on this context it 

would likewise be anomalous to 

interpret ‘‘contractor’’ to encompass 

multi-person entities. Therefore, 

NHTSA does not believe this comment 

warrants a change. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA specifically 

requested comment on whether a 

whistleblower must provide original 

information related to the company that 

employed or contracted with the 

whistleblower or whether the employee 

or contractor of any motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership can report original 

information regarding any motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier or 

dealership (not just the one that 

employed them or that they were 

contractors of). Kohn supported 

NHTSA’s proposal that competitors, 

partners, employees of another separate 

corporate entity should be entitled to an 

award under the plain meaning of the 

statute. NHTSA received no other 

comments in response to this question. 

C. Procedures for Submitting Original 

Information (§ 513.4) 

NHTSA proposed requiring potential 

whistleblowers to submit information 

on a standardized form—the proposed 

WB–INFO form. Proposed § 513.4(a) 

stated that the standard form must be 

submitted either by email to NHTSA’s 

established account 

(NHTSAWhistleblower@dot.gov), which 

is monitored by NHTSA’s Office of the 

Chief Counsel, or by any such method 

that the Agency may expressly designate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101960 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

16As stated in the NPRM, the purpose of 

requiring a sworn declaration on the WB–INFO 

form is to help deter the submission of false and 

misleading information and mitigate the potential 

harm to companies and individuals that may be 

caused by false or spurious allegations of 

wrongdoing. 

17 Kohn proposed that NHTSA take into 

consideration the case Whistleblower 21276–13W v. 

Commissioner, where the United States Tax Court 

held IRS regulations do not require Form 211 to be 

filed prior to providing information to the IRS to 

qualify for an award under 26 U.S.C. 7623. 144 T.C. 

290 (2015), United States Tax Court, Docket Nos. 

21276–13W, 21277–13W (June 2, 2015). However, 

NHTSA’s final rule does not require that a potential 

whistleblower submit a WB–INFO form to NHTSA 

prior providing NHTSA any information. 

18This includes a reporting individual who is an 

employee or contractor of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer. 

on its website. On the WB–INFO form, 

a potential whistleblower must declare, 

under penalty of perjury, at the time the 

potential whistleblower submits 

information on the WB–INFO form that 

the information is true and correct to the 

best of the potential whistleblower’s 

knowledge and belief.16

Proposed § 513.4(c) provided that a 

potential whistleblower may submit 

original information to the Agency 

anonymously through use of a legal 

representative. The legal representative 

must submit the information on behalf 

of the potential whistleblower pursuant 

to the procedures specified in 513.4(a). 

Kohn commented in support of 

NHTSA’s proposed procedures but 

objected to requiring that the timing of 

the submission of a WB–INFO form be 

determinative of qualification for an 

award. However, NHTSA’s proposed 

regulations do not specify when the 

WB–INFO form must be submitted to 

NHTSA.17 Therefore, NHTSA agrees 

with Kohn and will not require the 

timing of the WB–INFO form to be 

determinative of qualification for an 

award, subject to other provisions of the 

statute and regulations. For example, if 

a whistleblower initially reaches out to 

NHTSA without submitting a form 

(because the person is unaware of the 

Agency’s regulation), the whistleblower 

can still be eligible for an award if they 

subsequently submit the WB–INFO form 

to NHTSA. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that 

a whistleblower or the whistleblower’s 

legal representative must be the one to 

directly provide the information to 

NHTSA. This proposal was based on the 

statutory requirement that a 

whistleblower voluntarily provide 

information to the Secretary. NHTSA 

also requested comments on whether it 

should allow non-attorneys to submit 

information on behalf of a potential 

whistleblower. Kohn disagreed with 

requiring the whistleblower or their 

legal representative to make the 

submission. Kohn proposed that the 

statutory definition of original 

information implies that third parties 

who learned the information from a 

whistleblower can report the 

information to NHTSA, and those 

whistleblowers should be eligible for an 

award. Kohn proposed that NHTSA 

allow whistleblowers to submit 

information through third parties such 

as ‘‘news media, referrals from Congress 

or other investigatory agencies, civil 

society organizations, [or] international 

anti-corruption or law enforcement 

authorities.’’ Further, Kohn proposed 

that whistleblowers in countries outside 

the United States, especially in 

countries with no whistleblower 

protections, should not be ineligible for 

a whistleblower award because they 

used a third party, such as an advocacy 

group, to relay the information to 

NHTSA. NHTSA agrees with Kohn with 

respect to a whistleblower not being 

disqualified if the whistleblower is 

initially represented by an advocacy 

group. Rather, as long as it is clear that 

an advocacy group is making a 

submission on behalf of an individual, 

a whistleblower’s eligibility will not be 

affected. However, to be eligible for an 

award, NHTSA believes it is important 

that a whistleblower subsequently 

contact NHTSA directly about the 

subject information (in other words, the 

whistleblower must submit the WB– 

INFO form). That will help ensure that 

the Agency can follow up on issues and 

has the direct, unfiltered perspective of 

that person. 

Similarly, Kohn commented that 

NHTSA should not require that a 

whistleblower submit a WB–INFO form 

to be eligible for a whistleblower award. 

Kohn pointed to news sources and 

congressional testimony regarding 

whistleblowers who shared original 

information with news media and nongovernmental safety organizations rather 

than directly to NHTSA. Kohn argued 

that NHTSA will likely continue to 

obtain useful, original information from 

these third-party sources where a 

whistleblower did not go through 

NHTSA’s formal procedures. To support 

this proposal, Kohn pointed to a 

whistleblower in the Takata case’s 

interaction with the press alongside that 

individual’s reports to the Department 

of Justice and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI). 

NHTSA disagrees with this proposal. 

49 U.S.C. 30172(a)(6) defines a 

‘‘whistleblower’’ as someone who 

‘‘voluntarily provides to the Secretary 

original information.’’ (emphasis 

added). Congress mandated that a 

whistleblower provide the information 

to NHTSA to receive a whistleblower 

award. Further, if a whistleblower 

provides information to a news source, 

there is no guarantee that NHTSA will 

be able to obtain that person’s contact 

information. This is especially true if 

the source is anonymous. Nothing in 

this rule prevents a whistleblower from 

going to the press, the Department of 

Justice, the FBI, or other authorities in 

conjunction with a report to NHTSA. If 

a potential whistleblower goes to one of 

these other entities first, NHTSA hopes 

that the other entity would direct the 

whistleblower to submit information 

directly to NHTSA. If NHTSA receives 

a potential whistleblower’s contact 

information from another government 

agency, news organization, law 

enforcement authorities, advocacy 

organizations, or a similar third-party, 

NHTSA intends to attempt to contact 

the potential whistleblower and provide 

them information about how to submit 

a WB–INFO form. 

D. Confidentiality (§ 513.5) 

Consistent with the protections for 

whistleblowers in 49 U.S.C. 30172(f), 

NHTSA’s proposed § 513.5(a) explained 

that notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 30167, 

the Secretary and any officer or 

employee of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation shall not disclose any 

information, including information 

provided by a whistleblower to the 

Secretary, that could reasonably be 

expected to reveal the identity of a 

whistleblower, except in accordance 

with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

with certain exceptions as provided by 

statute. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA stated it is the 

Agency’s view that if an individual is 

not a whistleblower, as defined by the 

statute, the Agency is not bound by the 

limitations contained in 49 U.S.C. 

30172(f). However, it is the Agency’s 

intent to generally afford potential 

whistleblowers confidential protections, 

unless otherwise waived or permitted or 

required by law. NHTSA recognizes that 

potential whistleblowers often put 

themselves at risk of significant 

consequences, and thus maintaining 

their confidentiality is of the utmost 

importance. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that 

an individual discloses information 

relating to a motor vehicle defect, 

noncompliance, or violation of 

notification or reporting requirement 

that is not likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury, 

then that person is not a whistleblower 

and is not entitled to the statutory 

protection contained in 49 U.S.C. 

30172.18


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101961 

19The SEC and CFTC both have this practice. See, 

e.g., Final Rule, Securities Whistleblower Incentives 

and Protections, 76 FR 34300, 34332 (June 13, 

2011); Final Rule, Whistleblower Incentives and 

Protection, 76 FR 53172, 53184 (Aug. 25, 2011). 

20NHTSA redacts Personally Identifiable 

Information (PII) from publicly available 

documents. 

21Employees may file a complaint with the 

Secretary of Labor alleging such discharge or 

discrimination. The Secretary of Labor is required 

to notify in writing the person named in the 

complaint of the filing of the complaint, of the 

allegations contained in the complaint, of the 

substance of evidence supporting the complaint, 

and of the opportunities that will be afforded to 

such person. 49 U.S.C. 30171(b). 

22See Securities Whistleblower Incentives and 

Protections, 76 FR 34307 (June 13, 2011). 23See Proposed Rules for Implementing the 

Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21 F of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 75 FR 70490 (Nov. 

17, 2010). 

Commenters disagreed with NHTSA’s 

proposal to not afford the protections of 

49 U.S.C. 30172(f) to whistleblowers 

whose information relates to a motor 

vehicle defect, noncompliance, or 

violation of notification or reporting 

requirement that is not likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or injury. 

Commenters argue this exclusion is too 

subjective and will prevent potential 

whistleblowers from coming forward 

with information. Commenters argue 

potential whistleblowers will fear losing 

protections following an agency 

determination that submitted 

information is not likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or injury. 

Kohn claims this policy is also counter 

to the Whistleblower Act and will result 

in whistleblowers choosing not to report 

information to NHTSA for fear of 

exposure. 

NHTSA disagrees with these 

commenters. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30172(a)(6), Congress defined a 

whistleblower, in section 30172, among 

other specifications, as someone who 

submits original information ‘‘relating to 

any motor vehicle defect, 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of this chapter, 

which is likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury’’ 

(emphasis added). Further, under 49 

U.S.C. 30172(f), Congress limited 

confidentiality protections to persons 

who meet the definition of 

whistleblower. Therefore, NHTSA is 

only authorized to afford those legal 

protections to those who submit 

information ‘‘relating to any motor 

vehicle defect, noncompliance, or any 

violation or alleged violation of any 

notification or reporting requirement of 

this chapter, which is likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or serious 

physical injury.’’ See 49 U.S.C. 

30172(a)(6) (emphasis added). 

As discussed in the NPRM, unlike 

other entities that have a policy and 

practice to treat all information obtained 

during an investigation as confidential 

and nonpublic,19 NHTSA generally 

makes information on safety-related 

defect investigations for which it has 

not received a request for confidential 

treatment under 49 CFR part 512 

publicly available. The Agency posts 

materials such as Information Requests, 

Special Orders, and answers thereto on 

its website, www.nhtsa.gov. Further, 

NHTSA also makes publicly available 

various consumer complaints that it 

receives through a variety of sources, 

including calls to its vehicle safety 

hotline, which are transcribed, and 

submissions of Vehicle Owner 

Questionnaires (VOQs) through its 

website.20 Further, if an employee is 

worried about sharing information with 

NHTSA for fear of retaliation, 49 U.S.C. 

30171 put in place protections for 

employees of motor vehicle 

manufacturers, part suppliers, and 

dealerships to protect the employees 

from discrimination or discharge for, 

among other things, providing to the 

employer or the Secretary information 

relating to any motor vehicle defect, 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301. The language in 49 U.S.C. 

30171 does not restrict these protections 

only to those submitting information of 

a violation ‘‘which is likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or serious 

physical injury.’’ 21 Finally, § 513.6(b) 

gives the agency the ability to waive this 

requirement for good cause shown. 

NHTSA will therefore consider these 

issues on a case-by-case basis. 

Commenters either supported or did 

not comment on the remainder of the 

proposed provisions related to 

confidentiality. 

E. Prerequisites to the Consideration of 

an Award (§ 513.6) 

Proposed § 513.6 summarized the 

general prerequisites for persons to be 

considered for the payment of an award, 

based on the statutory language of 49 

U.S.C. 30172(b)(1) and the definition of 

a whistleblower under 49 U.S.C. 

30172(a)(6), but added the word 

‘‘potential’’ in front of the terms ‘‘motor 

vehicle defect’’ and ‘‘noncompliance.’’ 

Under proposed § 513.6(a), subject to 

the eligibility requirements in these 

rules, NHTSA may, but is not required 

to, authorize payment of an award to 

one or more persons who provide a 

voluntary submission to the Agency that 

contains original information relating to 

any potential motor vehicle defect, 

potential noncompliance, or any 

violation or alleged violation of any 

notification or reporting requirement of 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 or a regulation 

thereunder, which is likely to cause 

unreasonable risk of death or serious 

physical injury, and the original 

information in that submission leads to 

the successful resolution of a covered 

action. In the NPRM, NHTSA asked for 

proposals of any other prerequisites for 

an award. 

Kohn commented on Hyundai’s 

proposed definition of ‘‘voluntary’’ 

submitted to NHTSA prior to the 

publication of the NPRM. Specifically, 

Kohn agreed a person should not be 

considered voluntarily providing 

information if that person previously 

received a subpoena or a demand that 

relates to the same subject matter. 

However, Kohn proposed exceptions to 

the exclusion including ‘‘friendly’’ 

subpoenas, subpoenas after the 

whistleblower’s information ‘‘is 

published in the news media, presented 

to Congress or another federal or state 

agency, provided to the victims of an 

auto accident, set forth in testimony in 

any proceeding, or otherwise 

voluntarily presented prior to obtaining 

a subpoena,’’ and subpoenas after 

voluntarily providing ‘‘information to 

an organizations compliance program, 

legal organization and/or supervisory 

personnel within the company.’’ The 

National Whistleblower Center also 

proposed language that defines a 

voluntary submission as information 

provided before a request, inquiry, or 

demand that relates to the inquiry is 

directed at the potential whistleblower 

or anyone representing the potential 

whistleblower. 

NHTSA believes that whether 

information submitted after the 

potential whistleblower receives a 

subpoena or a demand related to the 

subject matter is ‘‘voluntarily 

provide[d]’’ to NHTSA depends on the 

particular circumstances. Like the SEC, 

NHTSA believes a whistleblower award 

should not be made available to an 

individual who makes a whistleblower 

submission after being asked to provide 

information on a matter during the 

course of an investigation or inquiry by 

that agency.22 Similar to the SEC, 

NHTSA believes ‘‘[o]nly a request that 

is directed to the individual involved 

(or the individual’s representative) will 

preclude that individual from 

subsequently making a ‘voluntary’ 

submission of the requested information 

or closely related information.’’ 23 If an 

individual is part of a group or division 

within a company that receives a 

request, they are not precluded from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101962 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

24This includes those who receive a subpoena 

from the Department of Justice. NHTSA notes that 

the receipt of a subpoena is indicative that a person 

may have relevant information, and not whether 

that person is a target of an investigation or 

otherwise suspected of wrongdoing. Other 

provisions of this final rule adequately inhibit 

wrongdoers from receiving a whistleblower award. 

25Other comments related to § 513.6 are 

addressed in the discussion of the definition of 

original information. 

26 In 49 U.S.C. 30172(c)(2), Congress used very 

similar language as in 7 U.S.C. 26(c)(2). The CFTC 

interpreted this language to mean only criminal 

violations determined by a United States court. See 

Whistleblower Incentives and Protection, 76 FR 

53172 (Aug. 25, 2011). 

making a whistleblower submission so 

long as the information they are 

providing to NHTSA meets the 

definition of ‘‘original information.’’ 

The prohibition on those who receive 

direct, individual requests for 

information is restricted to requests 

from NHTSA. NHTSA considers a 

potential whistleblower who gave 

information to another government 

agency, by compulsion or voluntarily, as 

generally not relevant to whether that 

individual voluntarily shared 

information with NHTSA.24

Additionally, Kohn proposed a 

mandatory payment of an award if all 

the proposed requirements are met. 

NHTSA disagrees and believes there 

may be instances when a person who 

meets the requirements of § 513.6 is 

disqualified from an award or otherwise 

should not receive an award. See 49 

U.S.C. 30172(c)(1)(A), (2).25 Related 

issues are further discussed with respect 

to the provisions on award 

determinations in § 513.10. 

F. Whistleblowers Ineligible for an 

Award (§ 513.7) 

The NPRM recited the categories of 

individuals who are ineligible for an 

award. Proposed § 513.7 was based on 

statutory construction as well as the 

statutory provisions contained in 49 

U.S.C. 30172(c)(2) and (g). 

Of the categories of individuals who 

are ineligible for an award proposed by 

the NPRM, commenters only discussed 

whistleblowers who are convicted of a 

criminal violation related to the covered 

action and those who failed to internally 

report a violation through a company’s 

internal reporting mechanism. 

Commenters disagreed about the scope 

of criminal violations included in 

proposed § 513.7(a). Additionally, 

commenters disagreed about whether a 

potential whistleblower should be 

required to use a company’s internal 

reporting mechanisms before reporting 

information to NHTSA to be eligible for 

an award. 

Proposed § 513.7 stated a 

whistleblower is ineligible for an award 

if the whistleblower is ‘‘convicted of a 

criminal violation related to the covered 

action for which the whistleblower 

otherwise could receive an award.’’ In 

the NPRM, NHTSA asked for comment 

regarding whether it should limit the 

criminal conviction bar to only those 

cases decided by a U.S. federal or state 

court or whether it should consider 

convictions issued by courts in other 

countries. Commenters disagreed about 

whether to include convictions issued 

by courts or tribunals in other countries. 

Hyundai proposed a broadening of the 

definition of criminal violations in the 

proposed rule. Hyundai’s proposal 

includes disqualifying those convicted 

in foreign tribunals and those who 

obtained information by a means or 

manner that is determined by a foreign 

court to be in violation of laws in the 

appropriate jurisdiction. Conversely, 

Constantine Cannon and Kohn propose 

the exclusion be limited to cases 

decided by U.S. federal or state courts. 

Both commenters point to NHTSA’s 

unfamiliarity with foreign laws and the 

markedly different procedures and 

rights afforded to those in foreign 

countries. After considering these 

comments NHTSA believes the 

exclusion should be limited to those 

criminal violations decided by a U.S. 

federal or state court and will add 

clarifying language to the final rule.26

Congress did not expressly state the 

scope of the exclusion. Therefore, the 

most logical reading of the statute is that 

it is referring to the United States. 

Moreover, expanding the exclusion to 

those criminal convictions decided by 

tribunals outside of the United States 

would potentially discourage 

whistleblowers by creating legal 

uncertainty. 

Additionally, Constantine Cannon 

proposed the removal of the 

requirement for a whistleblower to 

disclose on proposed WB–AWARD form 

information about whether the potential 

whistleblower is currently the subject or 

target of a criminal investigation 

connected to the information at issue. 

Constantine Cannon asserted that this 

requirement departs from congressional 

intent to only bar individuals who are 

convicted of criminal violations rather 

than those investigated. Constantine 

Cannon adds that a whistleblower may 

be unaware if there is an investigation 

and be unable to provide that 

information. NHTSA disagrees. As 

stated in the NPRM, NHTSA 

understands some potential 

whistleblowers might not know if they 

are under investigation. However, 

NHTSA continues to believe this 

information, to the extent known, would 

benefit the agency. Filling in that 

portion of the WB–AWARD form does 

not automatically disqualify a potential 

whistleblower from receiving an award. 

NHTSA generally anticipates waiting 

until those disclosed, applicable 

investigations are closed before issuing 

a decision on an award. If a potential 

whistleblower discloses an investigation 

or some other piece of information that 

is not related to a criminal investigation 

connected to the information at issue, 

NHTSA will determine on a case-bycase basis whether that information 

disqualifies a potential whistleblower 

from being eligible for an award. 

Finally, Hyundai requested to expand 

the exclusion of information obtained 

by unlawful means to include civil 

unlawful conduct to account for 

prosecutorial discretion. NHTSA 

disagrees. In 49 U.S.C. 30172(c)(2), 

Congress explicitly directs NHTSA to 

make no award to whistleblowers who 

are ‘‘convicted of a criminal violation 

related to the covered action for which 

the whistleblower otherwise could 

receive an award.’’ In light of the plain 

text reference to a criminal conviction, 

the provision as proposed is appropriate 

and would avoid incentivizing 

companies from suing potential 

whistleblowers. 

Commenters were also split on 

whether a whistleblower should be 

required to use a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, parts supplier, or 

dealership’s internal reporting 

mechanism. Commenters also proposed 

different assurances that a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, parts supplier, or 

dealership’s internal reporting 

mechanism contains protections against 

retaliation and the adequacy of those 

protections. 

Kohn commented that written 

protections from retaliation for internal 

reporting are not enough. Rather, Kohn 

proposed a requirement for confidential 

internal reporting mechanisms that 

prohibit corporate attorneys from 

learning the identity of a 

whistleblower—to guarantee complete 

confidentiality of a whistleblower. 

Additionally, Kohn argues a 

whistleblower who works with the 

government for many years on a 

successful enforcement action should 

not be barred from an award because 

they did not abide by internal reporting 

requirements. 

NHTSA believes that these comments 

are largely outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 49 U.S.C. 30172(c)(2)(E) 

does not address requirements for 

internal reporting mechanisms. Rather, 

it describes the circumstances when a 

whistleblower can use reporting 

mechanisms that are in place. NHTSA’s 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101963 

rule is consistent with the statute and 

NHTSA reiterates that the statute and 

associated regulatory provision allow 

for circumstances when internal 

reporting is not required, including for 

good cause shown. NHTSA believes 

these provisions strike the appropriate 

balance that the statute intended by 

incentivizing the use of internal 

reporting mechanisms in appropriate 

circumstances. 

MEMA and Hyundai both proposed 

that internal reporting should always be 

required for a potential whistleblower to 

be eligible for an award. MEMA 

proposed a broader internal reporting 

requirement that would require 

whistleblowers to report the information 

to the manufacturer prior to providing 

the information to NHTSA. MEMA 

explained that this requirement would 

give manufacturers the opportunity to 

rectify an issue without having to 

burden NHTSA. Hyundai proposed a 

similar broadening of the reporting 

requirement and proposed a waiting 

period requiring a whistleblower to give 

a manufacturer a discrete amount of 

time to report an issue to NHTSA before 

the whistleblower can contact NHTSA. 

Hyundai argued that this waiting period 

will give a manufacturer the 

opportunity to assess if a safety issue 

exists and, if appropriate, issue a recall. 

This waiting period, Hyundai 

comments, would prevent a 

whistleblower from internally reporting 

an issue and reporting it to NHTSA in 

quick succession. If a company does not 

have a formal requirement, Ford 

proposed the burden should be on the 

whistleblower to show NHTSA in 

writing a reasonable attempt was made 

to bring the information to persons in 

the company. 

Conversely, the National 

Whistleblower Center proposed 

language that further restricts the 

internal reporting requirement, 

excluding the internal reporting 

requirement if no such mechanism 

exists or, like in the proposed 

regulation, the whistleblower 

reasonably believes an internal report 

would result in retaliation. 

NHTSA disagrees with expanding the 

internal reporting requirement. The 

proposed requirement in the NPRM 

comes from the statutory language used 

in 49 U.S.C. 30172(c)(2)(E). That 

statutory language requires potential 

whistleblowers to use internal reporting 

requirements only when they are in 

place and have mechanisms to protect 

employees from retaliation. Therefore, 

NHTSA disagrees with proposals 

expanding this internal reporting 

requirement outside the statutory 

language and requiring internal 

reporting when no mechanism is in 

place. Congress carved out an exception 

to this requirement for potential 

whistleblowers who have a reasonable 

belief that an internal report would lead 

to retaliation. Therefore, it would be 

contrary to this exception to always 

require internal reporting even when no 

mechanism is in place to protect 

whistleblowers from retaliation. 

Additionally, NHTSA disagrees with 

Hyundai’s proposed, discrete waiting 

period for manufacturers to report an 

issue to NHTSA before a potential 

whistleblower may contact the Agency. 

The fact that NHTSA is also aware of a 

potential safety issue does not impact a 

manufacturer’s ability to expeditiously 

address it. 

Further, Kohn, Ford, and the National 

Whistleblower Center proposed more 

specifically defining an internal report. 

Kohn proposed that NHTSA include 

more specifications on what an internal 

report must include. For example, Kohn 

proposed that NHTSA clarify whether 

the information internally reported must 

match what is reported to NHTSA. Ford 

proposed a requirement that internal 

reporting must be in writing so that the 

whistleblower can provide 

documentation of internal reporting to 

NHTSA. The National Whistleblower 

Center proposed a specific definition for 

‘‘internal reporting mechanism’’ that 

includes a program widely publicized to 

employees that is independent of any 

legal department of the employer that 

can provide investigatory procedures, 

burdens of proof, and relief consistent 

with the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112– 

141, 49 U.S.C. 30171. Additionally, 

Ford proposed that NHTSA should 

clarify how it will consider whether an 

internal reporting mechanism has 

protections against retaliation. 

NHTSA believes that these issues are 

best suited to case-by-case evaluations 

and declines to further define these 

issues in the final rule. NHTSA agrees 

that the issue internally reported must 

generally match what is reported to 

NHTSA. It is likely that the information 

reported will not be identical, however, 

since additional context may be needed 

to explain the issue to the Agency. 

Additionally, the potential 

whistleblower may have additional 

information to report to the Agency 

based on how the internal report was 

handled. Whether or not a 

whistleblower has a reasonable belief 

that retaliation could occur or that the 

issue was already known to the 

company will likewise be handled on a 

case-by-case basis, given the factspecific nature of those issues. 

Additionally, NHTSA disagrees that a 

specific format for an internal report 

should be required. Although written 

documentation would be helpful for 

evaluating whether or not a potential 

whistleblower complied with internal 

reporting requirements, NHTSA does 

not believe such a requirement is 

necessary. For example, NHTSA is 

aware that some companies provide a 

telephone hotline for reporting potential 

safety issues. Use of such a provided 

mechanism would generally be 

sufficient to constitute an internal 

report. 

In addition, Kohn proposed that 

NHTSA adopt a number of blanket 

exemptions to the internal reporting 

requirement including: (1) if the 

whistleblower is not an employee of the 

entity at issue; (2) if the entity does not 

have an internal reporting program that 

guarantees confidentiality, is not 

independent from line-management, is 

not managed by an arm of the Office of 

General Counsel, and has independent 

authority to report to the company’s 

Chief Executive Office, Board of 

Directors, or Audit Committee; and (3) 

if the whistleblower is located in a 

country that lacks legal protections for 

internal whistleblowers at least as 

effective as 49 U.S.C. 30171 and 29 CFR 

1988. Further, Kohn proposed that 

NHTSA create requirements that 

lawyer-managed compliance programs 

be managed in an ethical manner. 

Similarly, the National Whistleblower 

Center proposed a subjective test to 

determine if a whistleblower has a 

reasonable belief of retaliation. 

Additionally, the National 

Whistleblower Center proposed 

language that exempts the internal 

reporting requirement when: (1) the 

employer has been found to have 

obstructed justice within the last five 

years prior to the whistleblower report; 

(2) the whistleblower reasonably 

believes the information was already 

internally reported or subject of an 

internal investigation, or was otherwise 

already known to the employer, or 

constitutes an immediate threat to 

public safety, or the violation was 

willfully committed; and (3) if the 

disclosure of the whistleblower is 

covered under the obstruction of justice 

laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), or if 

the whistleblower first provides the 

information to any law enforcement 

officer as a result of voluntary testimony 

in a grand jury or federal court 

proceeding concerning a potential 

criminal violation of an auto safety law. 

After consideration of these 

comments, NHTSA again believes these 

issues are best suited for case-by-case 

evaluation. While these types of 

considerations may support a potential 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101964 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27See https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/ 

whistleblower. 

28See 15 U.S.C. 2087. If a claim is filed under 15 

U.S.C. 2087, it needs to be filed within 180 days 

of the occurrence of the discriminatory action. 

29NHTSA also posts information on civil 

penalties collected on its website at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/civil-penaltysettlements. 

whistleblower’s reasonable belief that 

an internal report would have resulted 

in retaliation, was not necessary because 

it was already reported or known to the 

company, or otherwise constitute good 

cause for not requiring an internal 

report, NHTSA believes the proposed 

regulatory language appropriately 

balances providing guidance on these 

considerations with flexibility to 

consider the unique circumstances of 

each matter. Every situation is different 

and NHTSA does not want to 

discourage potential whistleblowers 

from reporting if their particular 

situation does not neatly fit into one of 

the proposed blanket exceptions, or to 

incentivize companies to take a ‘‘check 

the box’’ approach to designing an 

appropriate internal reporting 

mechanism and safeguards against 

retaliation. 

Ford proposed creating a presumption 

that an internal reporting mechanism 

protecting a whistleblower’s 

confidentiality protects whistleblowers 

against retaliation. Additionally, Ford 

proposed clarification that a 

whistleblower’s submitted information 

based on independent analysis should 

be subject to the internal reporting 

requirement. NHTSA declines to adopt 

these changes. Protecting confidentiality 

does not necessarily mean that a 

company is protecting a potential 

whistleblower from retaliation. For 

example, a potential whistleblower 

might be assured their name will not be 

reported, but the information they 

provide might indicate who reported 

that information. In that situation, 

assurance of confidentiality does not 

ensure that individual will not be 

retaliated against. Moreover, a potential 

whistleblower should not have to keep 

their identity confidential to be 

protected from retaliation and the 

ability of employees to openly speak up 

about potential safety issues advances 

vehicle safety. 

NHTSA also believes the proposed 

regulation adequately addresses all 

types of information, including 

independent analysis. For example, 

independent analysis logically would 

not be already known to the company 

unless reported. However, a potential 

whistleblower that has conducted 

independent analysis may have a 

reasonable belief that disclosure would 

result in retaliation. These issues are 

best addressed by a case-by-case 

consideration of the circumstances. 

NHTSA also wants to note that if 

retaliation does take place, a potential 

whistleblower should file a claim with 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA).27 Retaliation 

includes such actions as firing or laying 

off, demoting, denying overtime or 

promotion, or reducing pay or hours.28

G. Provision of False Information

(§ 513.8)

Proposed § 513.8 tracked the language

of 49 U.S.C. 30172(g), which states that 

a person who knowingly and 

intentionally makes any false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent statement or 

representation, or who makes or uses 

any writing or document knowing it to 

contain any false, fictitious, or 

fraudulent statement or entry, shall not 

be entitled to an award and shall be 

subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 

1001. 

NHTSA received no comments on 

proposed § 513.8. NHTSA is adopting 

this rule as proposed. 

H. Procedures for Making a Claim for a

Whistleblower Award (§ 513.9)

Proposed § 513.9 included a 

description of steps a whistleblower is 

required to follow to make an 

application for an award. The proposed 

process would begin with the Agency 

posting a ‘‘Notice of Covered Action’’ 

(Notice) on NHTSA’s website whenever 

any administrative or judicial action, 

including any related administrative or 

judicial action, brought by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 

or U.S. Department of Justice under 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301 in the aggregate 

results in collected monetary sanctions 

exceeding $1,000,000. The proposed 

Notice is published subsequent to a 

final judgment, order, or agreement that 

alone, or in the aggregate, results in 

collected monetary sanctions exceeding 

$1,000,000. For clarity, NHTSA will 

only post a Notice of Covered Action for 

any such action after the effective date 

of this rule.29

Hyundai commented generally in 

support of the procedures in proposed 

§ 513.9. Kohn proposed an agency

obligation to notify known

whistleblowers about a ‘‘Notice of

Covered Action’’ that is related to the

information provided by that

whistleblower. Additionally, Kohn

proposed an agency requirement, like

that of the IRS, whereby NHTSA must

submit a form stating whether or not the

investigators relied on information from

an individual resulting in an 

enforcement action. Kohn and the 

National Whistleblower Center 

proposed a deadline for NHTSA to make 

a preliminary award determination 

within 180 days of the posting of the 

notice and a final decision within one 

year of the publication of the Notice. 

NHTSA intends to inform known 

whistleblowers or their counsel of the 

Notice, but does not believe that it is 

necessary to codify. NHTSA disagrees 

with submitting a form stating whether 

or not the investigators relied on 

information from an individual 

resulting in an enforcement action. 

NHTSA is a much smaller organization 

than the IRS and does not believe that 

the burden of preparing such a form is 

outweighed by the benefit. 

Also, NHTSA disagrees with the 

proposed requirement to impose a 

particular deadline on issuing an award 

decision after the Notice. The length of 

time to complete the Agency’s 

assessment may depend on multiple 

factors, including whether follow-up is 

needed to clarify issues raised by the 

award claim and the complexity of the 

legal and factual issues involved, as 

well as agency resources and priorities. 

Additionally, due to its size, NHTSA 

does not have a dedicated 

whistleblower office. 

Kohn supported the allowance of 

emailed filings and the proposed WB– 

AWARD form. Kohn also agrees that all 

persons meeting the requirements 

should be eligible for an award 

regardless of citizenship. These 

comments are consistent with the rule 

as proposed. 

The NPRM proposed that a claimant 

will have ninety (90) days from the date 

of the Notice of Covered Action to file 

a claim, including any attachments, for 

an award based on that action, or the 

claim will be barred. However, Kohn 

proposed that if the 90th day falls on a 

weekend or federal holiday, the 

deadline should be the next business 

day. NHTSA agrees and has changed the 

regulatory text to ensure clarity on this 

issue. 

I. Award Determinations (§ 513.10)

Proposed § 513.10 described the

award determination process. 513.10(b) 

implements 49 U.S.C. 30172(c), as 

delegated to the NHTSA Administrator, 

and provides that the determination of 

whether, to whom, or in what amount 

to make an award shall be in the 

discretion of the Administrator. NHTSA 

requested comment regarding whether 

the Agency should limit its discretion 

and, if so, in what way. 

Although 49 U.S.C. 3017(c) provides 

the Secretary with discretion as to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101965 

30See 31 U.S.C. 3730(d) (‘‘If the Government 

proceeds with an action brought by a person under 

[the False Claims Act], such person shall, subject 

to the second sentence of this paragraph, receive at 

least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the 

proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim’’) 

(emphasis added); see also 7 U.S.C. 26 (‘‘[T]he 

Commission . . . shall pay an award or awards to 

1 or more whistleblowers who voluntarily provided 

original information to the Commission that led to 

the successful enforcement of the covered judicial 

or administrative action, or related action, in an 

aggregate amount equal to—(A) not less than 10 

percent, in total, of what has been collected of the 

monetary sanctions imposed in the action or related 

actions; and (B) not more than 30 percent, in total, 

of what has been collected of the monetary 

sanctions imposed in the action or related actions.’’) 

(emphasis added); see also 29 U.S.C. 7623(b)(1) (‘‘If 

the Secretary proceeds with any administrative or 

judicial action described in subsection (a) based on 

information brought to the Secretary’s attention by 

an individual, such individual shall . . . receive as 

an award . . .’’ (emphasis added)). 

31See 49 U.S.C. 30172(c)(1)(B)(ii). 

32See id. 30172(c)(1)(B)(iii). 

33See id. 30172(c)(1)(B)(i). 

whether to make an award, Constantine 

Cannon, Cohen Milstein, and Kohn 

commented that § 513.10 should make 

awards mandatory. Commenters pointed 

to a few mandatory award programs and 

their success to support this proposal. 

Commenters proposed a mandatory 

award program is needed because it will 

incentivize whistleblowers who fear 

losing their livelihood to report 

information. Additionally, commenters 

suggested mandatory financial 

incentives help potential 

whistleblowers partner with counsel 

they would not otherwise be able to 

afford to represent them through the 

legal process. Constantine Cannon 

claimed the rare and unusual 

circumstances presented by NHTSA in 

the NPRM where an award would be 

denied have never occurred and should 

not be used as reason to retain 

discretion. Similarly, Cohen Milstein 

argues the occurrences listed by NHTSA 

in the NPRM are already contemplated 

and addressed by 49 U.S.C. 

30172(c)(2)(A) and (B), which expressly 

limit award disqualification to 

situations where a whistleblower’s own 

violations relate to the violations that 

are subject of the enforcement action. 

Cohen Milstein also proposed the 

statutory floor of a whistleblower award 

at 10% would be redundant if the 

Administrator had discretion to award 

no award at all. Additionally, Kohn 

argued judicial review is not enough to 

prevent the abuse of discretion to deny 

rewards for any reason because courts 

will not overturn denials. 

After consideration of the comments, 

NHTSA believes that it is important to 

retain discretion. The reward mandates 

found in the False Claims Act and the 

Dodd-Frank Act use different language 

from that found in 49 U.S.C. 30172(c). 

49 U.S.C. 30172(c) explicitly provides 

discretion to determine ‘‘whether, to 

whom, or in what amount to’’ make a 

whistleblower award (emphasis added). 

Congress explicitly gave NHTSA 

discretion it gave neither under the 

False Claims Act nor under the DoddFrank Act.30 Therefore, a complete 

elimination of that discretion, as 

proposed by commenters, would be 

inconsistent with the language of the 

Whistleblower Act. Further, NHTSA 

does not believe the statutory floor of 

10% is redundant if NHTSA has the 

discretion to not make an award. 

NHTSA believes the 10% is a statutory 

floor if NHTSA decides to make an 

award. As described in the NPRM, this 

discretion would allow NHTSA to retain 

the ability to address rare 

circumstances. NHTSA does not believe 

this discretion should be a meaningful 

consideration for prospective 

whistleblowers. NHTSA likewise has 

discretion as to whether or not to pursue 

an enforcement action, and if so, the 

appropriate penalty. 

One individual commenter and Ford 

suggested the Agency develop a welldefined award matrix and include in 

§ 513.10(a) the factors considered when 

determining whether, to whom, and in 

what amount to make an award. The 

National Whistleblower Center 

proposed such language that specifically 

outlines when the Secretary may 

increase or decrease the percentage of 

the award paid to the whistleblower. 

Proposed factors to consider that may 

lead to an increase in percentage 

include (1) the significance of the 

information, (2) assistance provided by 

the whistleblower, (3) law enforcement 

interest, (4) participation in internal 

compliance systems and reporting 

mechanisms, (5) whether the 

whistleblower resides outside the 

United States, (6) the extent to which 

the award will encourage non-US 

citizens to provide information, and (7) 

whether the whistleblower promptly 

contacted federal or state law 

enforcement. Proposed factors to 

consider that may decrease a 

whistleblower award include (1) 

culpability, (2) an unreasonable 

reporting delay, and (3) interference 

with internal compliance and reporting 

mechanisms. These factors are similar to 

those found in the False Claims Act and 

the Dodd-Frank Act. 

NHTSA disagrees that adopting a 

formalized matrix or factors beyond 

those already proposed is necessary or 

appropriate at this time. 49 U.S.C. 

30172(c) already contains some of the 

factors proposed by the National 

Whistleblower Center, including the 

significance of information,31 assistance 

provided by the whistleblower,32 and 

participation in internal compliance 

systems and reporting mechanisms.33

These factors give guidance both to 

NHTSA and stakeholders, while 

retaining flexibility to consider the 

unique circumstances of each case. 

NHTSA also specifically disagrees with 

adding an award factor that directs 

NHTSA to consider law enforcement 

interest. This is a factor found in the 

CFTC’s regulations, 17 CFR 165.9(3)(b), 

which states, ‘‘the Commission will 

assess its programmatic interest in 

deterring violations of the Commodity 

Exchange Act by making awards to 

whistleblowers who provide 

information that leads to the successful 

enforcement of such laws.’’ NHTSA 

believes this is goal is already 

encompassed in consideration of the 

‘‘public interest’’ found in proposed 

§ 513.10(b)(5). Further, NHTSA 

disagrees with considering whether the 

whistleblower resides outside the 

United States and the extent to which 

the award will encourage non-U.S. 

citizens to provide information. NonU.S. citizens are eligible for 

whistleblower awards and NHTSA does 

not believe that this is relevant to the 

amount of the award. Many vehicles 

and parts are manufactured outside the 

United States and many companies that 

sell in the United States also conduct 

business around the world. Thus, 

whistleblowers outside the United 

States have information highly relevant 

to NHTSA’s vehicle safety work. As 

explained above, NHTSA has already 

made a whistleblower award to an 

individual who was employed in South 

Korea, which led to one of the largest 

enforcement actions in NHTSA’s 

history. Additionally, the NPRM already 

included a factor regarding the statutory 

purpose of incentivizing 

whistleblowers. NHTSA does not 

believe there is a need to bifurcate that 

factor into incentivizing U.S. citizens 

specifically. Finally, NHTSA disagrees 

with enumerating factors for decreasing 

a whistleblower award. Many of these 

factors already will lead to 

disqualification of a whistleblower from 

receiving an award as mentioned in the 

above discussion of proposed § 513.7. 

Each whistleblower award application 

will contain a unique set of facts and 

circumstances that NHTSA will 

consider. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA noted, in 

making a determination of a 

whistleblower award, the Agency 

anticipates reviewing relevant materials 

such as the claimant’s WB–AWARD 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101966 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

form, other filings or submissions from 

the potential whistleblower, materials 

from NHTSA staff, sworn declarations, 

and any other materials that may be 

relevant to the determination. In the 

NPRM, NHTSA requested comment on 

whether it should review information 

from outside persons, such as the 

company that was liable for the civil 

penalties. In the NPRM, NHTSA stated 

its tentative view that outside parties 

should not be able to insert themselves 

into the award process and submit 

information during the award 

determination. 

Commenters generally agreed with 

NHTSA’s tentative view that the Agency 

should not review information from 

outside persons, such as the company 

that was liable for the civil penalties. 

Commenters agreed that NHTSA’s 

confidentiality obligations prohibit 

sharing with third parties a 

whistleblower’s contribution to a 

successful action. Additionally, 

Constantine Cannon and Kohn 

suggested it would be unfair to a 

whistleblower to have to litigate with a 

third party whether the whistleblower 

deserved an award. Further, Kohn 

proposed that allowing information 

from outside persons would offer a 

company an opportunity to submit 

derogatory information about the 

whistleblower. NHTSA agrees with 

commenters and therefore will not 

generally consider submissions of 

information from outside persons or 

third parties when making an award 

determination. This determination does 

not preclude the Agency from 

considering investigative material, 

much of which likely came from the 

company liable from the civil penalty or 

other outside sources. Moreover, this 

determination does not preclude the 

Agency from following up, as 

appropriate, should it need additional 

information to consider the award 

claim. 

J. Appeals of Award Determinations 

(§ 513.11) 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30172(h)(2), the proposed § 513.11 

outlined the procedures for a claimant 

to appeal any award determination 

made by the Administrator under 

§ 513.10. Proposed § 513.11(a)(2) 

provided that if any claimant appeals 

within 30 days after a final award 

determination is issued by the 

Administrator, no payments with 

respect to the covered action will be 

made to any whistleblower in the action 

until the appealed award determination 

action is concluded. NHTSA requested 

comment on this position. 

Most commenters supported or had 

no comments regarding the proposed 

§ 513.11. However, Cohen Milstein 

commented that § 513.11 is too broad 

and NHTSA should not withhold 

uncontested portions of a whistleblower 

award during an appeal. Cohen Milstein 

proposed that even with multiple 

whistleblowers contesting an award 

amount, there is no reason to withhold 

a minimum uncontested amount to each 

whistleblower. 

However, NHTSA disagrees and 

believes that finality is important before 

initiating payment. As stated in the 

NPRM, NHTSA is constrained by the 

statute as to what percentage of the 

collected monetary sanctions in a 

covered action it may award to all 

whistleblowers. Any appeal could affect 

the amount paid. For example, if a court 

found that the Agency erroneously 

determined an individual eligible, it is 

possible even the uncontested portion of 

an award would be invalidated. 

K. Form WB–INFO (Appendix A) 

The Agency proposed to include form 

WB–INFO in Appendix A to part 513 to 

capture basic information about a 

potential whistleblower, the potential 

whistleblower’s legal representative (if 

applicable), the motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier or 

dealership about whom the concern is 

raised, the potential whistleblower’s 

current employer and address, and the 

potential whistleblower’s relationship to 

the company about which the concern 

is raised. 

Auto Innovators proposed a new field 

on the form explaining why the 

information relates to a matter that is 

likely to cause unreasonable risk of 

death or serious injury. Auto Innovators 

reasoned this proposal will allow 

NHTSA to quickly determine whether 

the submitted information is 

appropriate for the whistleblower 

program. 

NHTSA disagrees, as this 

determination is more appropriately 

made by NHTSA and the information 

already required by the form will inform 

that issue. 

L. Form WB–RELEASE (Appendix B) 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed form 

WB–RELEASE in Appendix B for those 

whistleblowers who wish to provide 

prior written consent for the Agency to 

disclose information that could 

reasonably be expected to reveal the 

whistleblower’s identity. NHTSA 

requested comment on whether the form 

WB–RELEASE should be prescribed by 

regulation, whether it would be better to 

specify the content of the form (and not 

the form itself), or whether the Agency 

should take a different approach. 

Kohn objected to the release form 

because of concerns that a potential 

whistleblower may interpret the release 

form as something that must be done to 

please investigators and investigators 

may use the form without considering 

specific circumstances. Kohn proposed 

any waiver of confidentiality should be 

done on a case-by-case basis and points 

to the IRS, SEC, and CFTC programs 

that do not use a similar form. 

Due to the way NHTSA investigates, 

in the course of an inquiry or analysis 

surrounding a whistleblower’s 

allegations, it may become necessary for 

NHTSA to reveal information that 

reasonably could be expected to reveal 

the whistleblower’s identity to persons 

or their counsel or agents at the 

organization or institution against 

whom such allegations are made. Such 

information could also be revealed to 

other entities if necessary for NHTSA to 

gather needed information on the 

alleged safety issue or misconduct that 

the whistleblower has brought to the 

Agency’s attention. The WB–RELEASE 

form provides whistleblowers a way to 

provide such consent. Consent is 

voluntary, as expressly indicated on the 

form. The Agency may request that a 

whistleblower provide such consent, as 

such consent may facilitate NHTSA’s 

review of the information. 

M. Form WB–AWARD (Appendix C) 

The NPRM also proposed WB– 

AWARD in Appendix C to part 513. 

Proposed form WB–AWARD, and the 

instructions thereto, requested basic 

information about a claimant and the 

claimant’s legal representative (if 

applicable), the issue/information 

submitted by the claimant, information 

regarding the Notice of Covered Action, 

information on how the claimant 

acquired the original information, as 

well as other information relevant to the 

claimant’s eligibility for an award. 

Specifically, the form asks whether the 

potential whistleblower is the subject or 

target of a criminal investigation 

connected to the information at issue. 

Constantine Cannon proposed the 

removal of the requirement for a 

whistleblower to disclose on proposed 

WB–AWARD form information about 

whether the potential whistleblower is 

currently the subject or target of a 

criminal investigation connected to the 

information at issue. Constantine 

Cannon suggested the disclosure is 

contrary to Congress’s intent because 

Congress mandated a bar for those 

convicted of criminal violations, not 

individuals being investigated for a 

criminal violation. Similarly, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101967 

Constantine Cannon proposed that a 

person might not know if they are the 

subject of a criminal investigation and 

therefore be unable to honestly respond 

to the question on the WB–AWARD 

form. 

NHTSA disagrees. The requirement 

makes the Agency aware of criminal 

investigations, to the extent known to 

the claimant. The regulations still only 

bar a person from receiving an award if 

they are convicted rather than if they are 

only investigated. A potential 

whistleblower will not be barred from 

receiving an award because they did not 

disclose a criminal investigation of 

which they were unaware. NHTSA is 

adopting the form as proposed, without 

substantive change. 

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

13563, Executive Order 14094, and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

Executive Order 14094, and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

final rule is nonsignificant under E.O. 

12866 and E.O. 14094 and was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). It is also not 

considered ‘‘of special note to the 

Department’’ under DOT Order 

2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance 

Procedures. 

This action adds part 513 to 

implement the whistleblower program. 

This is a program for whistleblowers to 

voluntarily submit information to 

NHTSA and potentially receive 

monetary awards. The rule formalizes 

certain procedures for the whistleblower 

program, including through the use of 

forms to help provide guidance to 

whistleblowers, organize information 

submitted to the Agency, and ensure the 

Agency receives the information needed 

to make determinations on 

whistleblower awards. Because the 

Agency expects any costs, benefits, or 

savings associated with this rulemaking 

to be minimal, we have not prepared a 

separate economic analysis for this 

rulemaking. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

action on small entities. I certify that 

this final rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The rules apply only to those employees 

and contractors of motor vehicle 

manufacturers, part suppliers, or 

dealerships who provide information to 

the Agency relating a potential motor 

vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 (or regulation thereunder), 

which is likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury. 

Companies and other entities are not 

eligible to participate in the program as 

whistleblowers. Consequently, the 

persons that are subject to this final rule 

are not ‘‘small entities’’ for the purposes 

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 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 rule defines certain terms 

important to the operation of the 

whistleblower program, outlines the 

procedures for submitting original 

information to NHTSA and applying for 

awards, discusses NHTSA’s procedures 

for making decisions on award 

applications, and generally explains the 

scope of the whistleblower program to 

the public and potential whistleblowers. 

NHTSA’s decisions on who qualifies as 

a whistleblower and who is eligible to 

receive a whistleblower award would 

constitute separate agency actions that 

are independent of this final rule. 

Similarly, the information that NHTSA 

will receive from whistleblowers under 

this final rule will already exist, and 

therefore, will be independent of this 

final rule. Finally, all current and 

former employees or contractors who 

are potential whistleblowers under this 

rule will choose to submit information 

voluntarily to NHTSA. Consequently, 

this rule is not expected to significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with states, local 

governments, or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The Agency has concluded that 

this action would not have ‘‘federalism 

implications’’ because it would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects 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,’’ as specified in 

section 1 of the Executive Order. This 

rule generally applies to employees and 

contractors of motor vehicle 

manufacturers, part suppliers, or 

dealerships. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 is not implicated and 

consultation with state and local 

officials is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, 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 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This final rule does not result in 

the expenditure by state, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows: This final rule implements 

the whistleblower program, including 

outlining the procedures for submitting 

original information, applying for 

awards, the Agency’s procedures for 

making decisions on the claims, appeals 

of such decisions, and payment of the 

award. It discusses communications 

with individuals reporting safety 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101968 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

information and protections afforded 

related to the whistleblowers’ identity. 

The statute was effective upon 

enactment. 

The rule will not have retroactive 

effect. Under the rule of construction 

contained in Section 24352(b) of the 

FAST Act, information submitted by a 

whistleblower in accordance with the 

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 30172 does 

not lose its status as original 

information solely because the 

whistleblower submitted the 

information prior to the effective date of 

these regulations if that information was 

submitted after the date of enactment of 

the FAST Act. In accordance with 

section 24352(b) of the FAST Act, the 

statute does not retroactively qualify 

information submitted prior to the 

enactment of the FAST Act as original 

information eligible for whistleblower 

protection or monetary award. The rule 

likewise does not have retroactive 

application to information submitted 

prior to enactment of the FAST Act. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. NHTSA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule does not meet the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be 

considered a major rule. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The DOT 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 April 

and October 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

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 

OMB control number. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for a proposed 

new information collection described 

below has been forwarded to OMB for 

review and comment. 

NHTSA did not receive any 

comments that directly addressed its 

PRA analysis or its burden estimates 

discussed in the NPRM. As described 

above, this final rule requires the same 

information to be collected as was 

proposed in the NPRM. However, 

NHTSA did receive one comment about 

a voluntary potential burden that is 

separate from NHTSA’s three required 

forms. This comment addressed the 

Agency’s proposed suggestion for 

potential whistleblowers under binding 

nondisclosure agreements to consult 

private counsel before providing 

information to NHTSA. We discuss that 

comment and potential burden below. 

The titles for the collection of 

information are forms: (1) WB–INFO, (2) 

WB–RELEASE, and (3) WB–AWARD. 

Under § 513.4 and § 513.9, these forms 

are necessary to implement section 

30172 of the Safety Act. 

The WB–INFO form allows a 

whistleblower to provide information to 

the Agency and its staff relating to 

general information about the 

whistleblower, information about the 

motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership about whom the 

concern is raised, the type and source of 

information being reported, the 

individual’s legal representative (if 

applicable), the information about any 

potential motor vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or violation or alleged 

violation of any notification or reporting 

requirement of Chapter 301 or 

regulation thereunder, which is likely to 

cause unreasonable risk of death or 

serious physical injury, and additional 

information. 

Form WB–RELEASE provides a 

means for a whistleblower to provide 

prior written consent for the Agency to 

disclose information which could 

reasonably be expected to reveal the 

whistleblower’s identity. 

The WB–AWARD form allows the 

claimant to provide information related 

to the claimant’s eligibility for an award. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: 

Form WB–INFO, which would be 

submitted pursuant to § 513.4, requests 

the following information: 

(1) Background information regarding 

the person submitting the form, 

including the person’s name, contact 

information and occupation and the 

person’s relationship to the company 

about whom the concern is raised; 

(2) Information about the motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier or 

dealership about which the concern is 

raised; 

(3) If the person is represented by a 

legal representative, the name and 

contact information for the person’s 

legal representative (in cases of 

anonymous submissions the person 

must be represented by a legal 

representative); 

(4) Information regarding the issue 

involving a motor vehicle manufacturer, 

part supplier, or dealership, including 

the date of the alleged issue, whether 

the conduct is on-going, and whether 

the person or their counsel had any 

prior communication with NHTSA; 

(5) Whether the allegation is related to 

a potential safety-related defect or 

noncompliance with an applicable 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 

and if so a detailed description of the 

allegation and how the allegation affects 

vehicle/system/component performance 

and/or compliance, and the make, 

model, model year, part number, 

component number, etc., if known; 

(6) Whether the allegation is related to 

any violation or alleged violation of any 

notification or reporting requirement of 

the Safety Act, and if so, a description 

of the notification or reporting issue, 

including all facts pertinent to the 

alleged violation; 

(7) A description of supporting 

materials in the whistleblower’s 

possession and the availability and 

location of other additional supporting 

materials; 

(8) A description of how the person 

learned about or obtained the 

information submitted, and, if any 

information was obtained from a public 

source, a description of that source; 

(9) Identification of documents or 

other information in the submission that 

the person believes could reasonably be 

expected to reveal the person’s identity 

and the basis for that belief; 

(10) Whether the person or legal 

representative of the person has taken 

any other action regarding the issue, and 

if so, a description; 

(11) Whether the person acquired the 

information through a means or manner 

that has been determined by a United 

States federal court or a state court to 

violate applicable federal or state 

criminal law, and if so, details regarding 

that determination; 

(12) Whether the person acquired the 

information solely through a 

communication that was subject to a 

privilege, such as the attorney-client 

privilege or attorney work product 

doctrine; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101969 

(13) Any other relevant information; 

(14) A declaration, signed under 

penalty of perjury under the laws of the 

United States, that the information 

provided to NHTSA is true and correct 

to the best of the person’s knowledge, 

information and belief and 

acknowledgement from the person that 

they may be subject to prosecution and 

ineligible for a whistleblower award if, 

in their submission of information, their 

other dealings with NHTSA, or their 

dealings with another authority in 

connection with a related action, they 

knowingly and willfully make any false, 

fictitious or fraudulent statements or 

representations, or use any false writing 

or document knowing that the writing 

or document contains any false, 

fictitious or fraudulent statement or 

entry; and 

(15) If represented by a legal 

representative, the legal representative’s 

certification certifying that the legal 

representative has verified the identity 

of the individual who completed form 

WB–INFO by viewing that individual’s 

valid, unexpired government issued 

identification, reviewed the individual’s 

WB–INFO form for accuracy, and that 

the information contained therein is 

true and correct to the best of the legal 

representative’s knowledge, information 

and belief; that the legal representative 

will retain an original, signed copy of 

the form with section F filled out by 

their client in their file; and that the 

legal representative has obtained the 

whistleblower’s non-waivable consent 

to provide NHTSA with the 

whistleblower’s original signed WB– 

INFO form in the event that NHTSA 

requests it. 

Form WB–RELEASE requests the 

following information: 

(1) Background information regarding 

the whistleblower submitting the WB– 

RELEASE form, including the person’s 

name and address; 

(2) The name of the motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier and/or 

dealership to which the whistleblower’s 

issue or information relates; 

(3) An acknowledgment that the 

person consents to disclosure of 

information that could reasonably be 

expected to reveal the person’s identity; 

and 

(4) Signature of the whistleblower and 

date. 

Form WB–AWARD, which would be 

submitted pursuant to § 513.9 requires 

the following information: 

(1) The claimant’s name, address and 

contact information; 

(2) If the person is represented by a 

legal representative, the name and 

contact information for the legal 

representative; 

(3) Details concerning the issue, 

including the manner in which the 

information was submitted to NHTSA, 

the date when the information was 

submitted, the form in which it was 

submitted, and the name of the motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier and/ 

or dealership to which the issue or 

information relates; 

(4) Information concerning the Notice 

of Covered Action to which the claim 

relates, including the date of the Notice, 

the Notice Number, and the Case name 

and number; and information regarding 

related actions, if applicable; 

(5) Information relating to the 

claimant’s eligibility for an award, 

including whether the person acquired 

the information solely through a 

communication that was subject to the 

attorney-client privilege or attorney 

work product doctrine; whether the 

person acquired the original information 

by a means or manner that was 

determined by a United States federal 

court or state court to violate applicable 

federal or state criminal law; and 

whether the person is currently a 

subject or target of a United States 

federal or state criminal investigation or 

has been convicted of a criminal 

violation by a United States federal or 

state court in connection with the 

allegations or conduct the person 

submitted to NHTSA. If any of the 

circumstances noted above were 

applicable, the person is requested to 

provide an explanation; 

(6) An explanation of the reasons that 

the person believes an award in 

connection with the person’s 

submission of information to NHTSA is 

warranted, including any information 

that might be relevant in light of the 

criteria for determining the amount of 

an award set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30172 

and 49 CFR part 513; and 

(7) A declaration by the claimant 

under penalty of perjury under the laws 

of the United States that the information 

provided in the WB–AWARD form is 

true and correct to the best of the 

person’s knowledge, information and 

belief and acknowledgement from the 

person that they may be subject to 

prosecution and ineligible for a 

whistleblower award if, in their 

submission of information, their other 

dealings with NHTSA, or their dealings 

with another authority in connection 

with a related action, they knowingly 

and willfully make any false, fictitious 

or fraudulent statements or 

representations, or use any false writing 

or document knowing that the writing 

or document contains any false, 

fictitious or fraudulent statement or 

entry. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and Use of the Information: 

The collection of information on form 

WB–INFO will be used to permit the 

Agency and its staff to collect 

information from whistleblowers 

regarding any potential motor vehicle 

defect, potential noncompliance, or any 

violation or alleged violation of any 

notification or reporting requirement of 

the Safety Act or regulation thereunder 

for which NHTSA has enforcement 

authority. NHTSA investigators 

consider information provided by 

whistleblowers, which may lead to 

formal actions like an investigation, 

recall, or civil penalty enforcement 

action. If this information leads to a 

successful resolution of a covered action 

resulting in monetary sanctions 

collected by the United States in excess 

of $1,000,000, a whistleblower would be 

eligible for an award. 

The WB–RELEASE form will provide 

a means for the whistleblower to 

provide consent for the Agency to 

disclose information that could 

reasonably be expected to reveal the 

identity of the whistleblower. Being able 

to disclose this information may allow 

the Agency to open a public 

investigation or proceed more efficiently 

with an investigation into the 

whistleblower’s allegations. This form is 

not required. 

The WB–AWARD form will permit 

the Agency to collect information 

relating to a claimant’s eligibility for an 

award, the claimant’s position on why 

they should receive an award, and the 

claimant’s view on the criteria for 

determining the amount of an award. 

This information would allow the 

Administrator to determine claims for 

whistleblower awards. 

Finally, there is a potential limited 

number of respondents who may need 

to consult with private counsel about a 

binding nondisclosure agreement prior 

to the potential whistleblower 

submitting a WB–INFO form to NHTSA. 

This is an optional, voluntary step that 

some potential whistleblowers may 

choose to take so they can receive legal 

advice with respect to whether a 

confidentiality agreement with their 

employer prohibits them from 

submitting information to NHTSA. 

Affected Public: 

The likely respondents to form WB– 

INFO are those employees or contractors 

of motor vehicle manufacturers, part 

suppliers, and dealerships who wish to 

provide the Agency staff with 

information relating to any potential 

motor vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of the Safety Act 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101970 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

34Because there has not been a required method 

or form of submission, NHTSA has taken a broad 

view of what is considered whistleblower 

information. Such information comes from a variety 

of sources, such as Vehicle Owner Questionnaires 

(‘‘VOQ’’), information provided by telephone, and 

information submitted by letter or email to the 

Agency. NHTSA has taken this broad view not only 

to review and track the information submitted, but 

also to better protect the confidentiality of those 

who have provided whistleblower information to 

the Agency. 

35This amount is based on the U.S Attorney’s 

Office for the District of Columbia Fees Matrix for 

2015–2021, assuming that an attorney with 11–15 

years of experience assists the whistleblower. See 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1461316/download. 36The Agency expects that counsel will need to 

expend additional time to gather information from 

the whistleblower or review sources of information 

needed to complete the forms, which is why this 

estimate is higher than the estimate to just complete 

the form. 

or regulation thereunder that is likely to 

cause unreasonable risk of death or 

serious physical injury. 

The likely respondents to form WB– 

RELEASE are those individuals who 

wish to provide prior written consent to 

NHTSA for disclosure of information 

that could reasonably be expected to 

reveal that individual’s identity. 

The likely respondents to form WB– 

AWARD will be those individuals who 

have provided the Agency with original 

information by filing a WB–INFO form, 

and who believe they are eligible for an 

award under 49 CFR part 513. 

The potential likely respondents who 

may need to consult with private 

counsel prior to submitting a WB–INFO 

form to NHTSA are those individuals 

who signed a binding nondisclosure 

agreement. 

Estimated Number of Respondents for 

Form WB–INFO: 

Since the enactment of the FAST Act 

in 2015, NHTSA has received 

approximately 300 submissions that it 

has considered potential whistleblower 

submissions.34 The Agency estimates 

that there will be approximately 50 

individuals per fiscal year who may 

wish to file such form. The Agency 

estimated the number of individuals 

based on the current number of 

whistleblower submissions and the 

Agency’s view that submissions will 

increase once the whistleblower reward 

program is more widely known, after 

the rules are promulgated and 

additional whistleblower awards are 

made. 

Frequency of Form WB–INFO: 

The Agency expects that the 

individual will complete one form 

detailing all potential issues they are 

aware of. 

Number of Responses for Form WB– 

INFO: 

The Agency anticipates there will be 

approximately 50 individuals per fiscal 

year who may wish to file such a form. 

NHTSA assumes half of this number 

will have a legal representative. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours for Form WB–INFO: 

NHTSA estimates an average of 10 

burden hours per individual who 

completes the WB–INFO form, and 20 

hours per individual who has a legal 

representative complete the WB–INFO 

form. The completion time will depend 

largely on the complexity of the alleged 

violation and the amount of information 

the whistleblower possesses in support 

of the allegations. The Agency estimates 

that the total annual PRA burden of 

form WB–INFO is 750 hours per year 

(25 respondents who use a legal 

representative × 20 hours) plus (25 

respondents who fill out their own form 

× 10 hours). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost 

for Form WB–INFO: 

NHTSA estimates the total annual 

burden cost for the Form WB–INFO to 

be $266,000. NHTSA bases the estimate 

on the following: 

Costs for Legal Representatives to Fill 

out the Form WB–INFO: 

Under the final rule, a potential 

whistleblower who discloses their 

identity may elect to retain a legal 

representative, while an anonymous 

potential whistleblower is required to 

retain a legal representative. The 

Agency expects that in most of those 

instances where a legal representative is 

retained, the whistleblower/claimant’s 

legal representative will complete or 

assist in the completion of some or all 

of the required forms on the client’s 

behalf. The Agency also expects that in 

the vast majority of cases in which a 

whistleblower/claimant is represented 

by a legal representative, such person 

will enter into a contingency fee 

arrangement with such legal 

representative, providing that the legal 

representative will provide 

representation in exchange for a fixed 

percentage of any recovery under the 

whistleblower award program. 

Therefore, the Agency believes that 

most persons will not incur any direct 

expenses for attorneys’ fees for the 

completion of required forms. The 

Agency also anticipates that a very 

small number of people will enter into 

hourly fee arrangements with counsel. 

The Agency believes that approximately 

half of potential whistleblowers will 

have a legal representative submit the 

forms. The Agency has estimated the 

cost of using a legal representative 

regardless of whether the fee is 

contingent or hourly. 

To estimate those expenses, the 

Agency makes the following 

assumptions: 

(i) The Agency will receive 

approximately 50 WB–INFO forms 

annually; 

(ii) Of these approximately 50 WB– 

INFO forms, potential whistleblowers 

will have a legal representative submit 

approximately 25 WB–INFO forms; 

(iii) Legal representative cost will be 

on average $532 35 per hour; and 

(iv) Legal representatives will bill on 

average 20 hours to review materials 

and complete form WB–INFO.36

Based on those assumptions, the 

Agency estimates that each year the cost 

of legal representative time for 

completion of the forms will be 

$266,000 for the completion of form 

WB–INFO (($532 × 20 hours) × 25 

respondents). 

Costs of Submission 

The Agency anticipates that the vast 

majority of whistleblowers/claimants 

will submit the forms using electronic 

means rather than mail. Therefore, the 

expected cost of submission of the forms 

is $0.00. 

Estimated Number of Respondents for 

Form WB–RELEASE: 

The Agency estimates that it will 

receive 45 WB–RELEASE forms per 

year. 

Frequency of Form WB–RELEASE: 

The Agency expects that an 

individual will complete one form per 

year. 

Number of Responses for Form WB– 

RELEASE: 

The Agency anticipates there will be 

approximately 45 individuals per fiscal 

year who may wish to file a form WB– 

RELEASE. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours for Form WB–RELEASE: 

The Agency estimates that it will take 

15 minutes per individual to complete 

the form, and the Agency estimates that 

it would receive 45 WB–RELEASE 

forms per year. The Agency anticipates 

that potential whistleblowers will 

complete and submit for themselves 20 

WB–RELEASE forms annually and that 

legal representatives will submit on 

their client’s behalf 25 WB–RELEASE 

forms annually. Thus, the Agency 

estimates that that estimated annual 

PRA burden of form WB–RELEASE is 

11.25 hours per fiscal year (45 

respondents × 15 minutes/60). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost 

for Form WB–RELEASE: 

NHTSA estimates the total annual 

burden cost for the Form WB–RELEASE 

to be $3,325. The Agency bases the 

estimate on the following: 

Involvement and Cost of Legal 

Representatives: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101971 

37This amount is based on the U.S Attorney’s 

Office for the District of Columbia Fees Matrix for 

2015–2021, assuming that an attorney with 11–15 

years of experience assists the whistleblower. See 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1461316/download. 

38While it is unlikely that there will be 

whistleblower information provided in connection 

with every Notice of Covered Action posted by the 

Agency, this estimate calculates burden hours as if 

there were one claim for each Covered Action. 

39This amount is based on the U.S Attorney’s 

Office for the District of Columbia Fees Matrix for 

2015–2021, assuming that an attorney with 11–15 

years of experience assists the whistleblower. See 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1461316/download. 

Under the Final Rule, a potential 

whistleblower who discloses their 

identity may elect to retain a legal 

representative, while an anonymous 

potential whistleblower is required to 

retain a legal representative. The 

Agency expects that in most of those 

instances where a legal representative is 

retained, the potential whistleblower’s 

legal representative will complete or 

assist in the completion of some or all 

of the required forms on the client’s 

behalf. The Agency also expects that in 

the vast majority of cases in which a 

potential whistleblower is represented 

by a legal representative, such person 

will enter into a contingency fee 

arrangement with such legal 

representative, providing that the legal 

representative will provide 

representation in exchange for a fixed 

percentage of any recovery under the 

whistleblower award program. 

Therefore, the Agency believes that 

most persons will not incur any direct 

expenses for attorneys’ fees for the 

completion of required forms. The 

Agency also anticipates that a very 

small number of people will enter into 

hourly fee arrangements with counsel. 

The Agency has estimated the cost of 

using a legal representative regardless of 

whether the fee is contingent or hourly. 

To estimate those expenses, the 

Agency makes the following 

assumptions: 

(i) The Agency will receive 45 WB– 

RELEASE forms annually; 

(ii) Potential whistleblowers will have 

a legal representative submit 

approximately 25 WB–RELEASE forms 

annually; 

(iii) Attorney cost will be on average 

$532 37 per hour; and 

(iv) Attorneys will bill on average 15 

minutes to complete form WB– 

RELEASE. 

Based on those assumptions, the 

Agency estimates that each year the cost 

of attorney time for completion of the 

forms will be $3,325 for the completion 

of form WB–RELEASE (($532 × 15 

minutes/60) × 25 respondents). 

Costs of Submission 

The Agency anticipates that the vast 

majority of potential whistleblowers 

will submit the forms using electronic 

means rather than mail. Therefore, the 

expected cost of submission of the forms 

is $0.00. 

Estimated Number of Respondents for 

Form WB–AWARD: 

Each individual who has submitted a 

form WB–INFO and wishes to be 

considered for an award under the 

program would be required to provide a 

WB–AWARD form to the Agency. A 

claimant could only submit a WB– 

AWARD form after there has been a 

‘‘Notice of Covered Action’’ published 

on the Agency’s website pursuant to 

§ 513.9. The Agency estimates that it 

will post approximately 1–2 such 

Notices each year. The Agency bases 

this estimate by looking at the 

enforcement actions resulting in civil 

penalties exceeding $1,000,000 over the 

last several years, not including deferred 

penalties not collected or performance 

amounts. In some years, the Agency did 

not collect any civil penalties exceeding 

$1,000,000. In another year, the Agency 

had several instances where it collected 

more than $1,000,000 in civil penalties 

in connection with an enforcement 

action. The Agency believes that as this 

whistleblower program grows, more 

actionable submissions will be made 

and, as a consequence, the Agency will 

have more actions resulting in collected 

monetary sanctions exceeding 

$1,000,000. 

Considering the estimate of the 

anticipated yearly covered actions, and 

the Agency’s experience to date, the 

Agency estimates that it would receive 

approximately 2 WB–AWARD forms 

each year.38

Frequency of Form WB–AWARD: 

The Agency expects that the 

individual will complete one form. 

Number of Responses for Form WB– 

AWARD: 

The Agency anticipates there will be 

approximately 2 individuals per fiscal 

year who may wish to file such. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours for Form WB–AWARD: 

The collection is estimated to involve 

approximately 10 burden hours per 

individual seeking to be considered for 

an award under the Agency’s 

whistleblower program. The Agency 

estimates that the estimated annual PRA 

burden of form WB–AWARD is 20 hours 

per fiscal year (2 respondents × 10 

hours). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost 

for Form WB–AWARD: 

The Agency estimates the total annual 

burden cost for the Form WB–AWARD 

to be $10,640. The Agency bases the 

estimate on the following: 

Involvement and Cost of Legal 

Representatives 

Under the final rule, a potential 

whistleblower who discloses their 

identity may elect to retain a legal 

representative, while an anonymous 

potential whistleblower is required to 

retain a legal representative. The 

Agency expects that in most of those 

instances where a legal representative is 

retained, the potential whistleblower/ 

claimant’s legal representative will 

complete or assist in the completion of 

some or all of the required forms on the 

client’s behalf. The Agency also expects 

that in the vast majority of cases in 

which a potential whistleblower/ 

claimant is represented by a legal 

representative, such person will enter 

into a contingency fee arrangement with 

such legal representative, providing that 

the legal representative will provide 

representation in exchange for a fixed 

percentage of any recovery under the 

whistleblower award program. 

Therefore, the Agency believes that 

most persons will not incur any direct 

expenses for legal representatives’ fees 

for the completion of required forms. 

The Agency also anticipates that a very 

small number of people will enter into 

hourly fee arrangements with counsel. 

However, the Agency does believe that 

all individuals submitting a WB– 

AWARD form will use a legal 

representative. The Agency has 

estimated the cost of using a legal 

representative regardless of whether the 

fee is contingent or hourly. 

To estimate those expenses, the 

Agency makes the following 

assumptions: 

(i) The Agency will receive 

approximately 2 WB–AWARD forms 

annually; 

(ii) Claimants will have a legal 

representative submit 2 WB–AWARD 

forms annually; 

(iii) Legal representative cost will be 

on average $532 39 per hour; and 

(iv) Legal representatives will bill on 

average 10 hours to complete a form 

WB–AWARD. 

Based on those assumptions, the 

Agency estimates that each year the cost 

of legal representatives’ time for 

completion of the forms will be $10,640 

for the completion of form WB–AWARD 

(($532 × 10 hours) × 2 respondents). 

Costs of Submission 

The Agency anticipates that the vast 

majority of claimants will submit the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101972 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

forms using electronic means rather 

than mail. Therefore, the expected cost 

of submission of the forms is $0.00. 

Mandatory Collection of Information 

As proposed in the NPRM, a person 

will be required to complete and submit 

a WB–INFO form and to submit a WB– 

AWARD form to qualify for a 

whistleblower award. 

Optional Annual Burden Cost 

Associated With Collection of a WB– 

INFO Form 

Consulting with private counsel about 

a nonbinding disclosure agreement is a 

voluntary, optional burden cost; 

however, it is a voluntary burden cost 

that some potential whistleblowers 

might need to take prior to submitting 

a WB–INFO form to NHTSA. 

As discussed above, NHTSA received 

a comment from Kohn that disagreed 

with NHTSA’s suggestion in the NPRM 

that potential whistleblowers under 

binding nondisclosure agreements 

consult private counsel before 

submitting a WB–INFO form to NHTSA. 

As noted above, NHTSA is obligated to 

adhere to and support a whistleblower’s 

statutory protections, but NHTSA’s 

attorneys do not represent 

whistleblowers. Therefore, if a 

whistleblower needs legal advice, they 

should obtain their own private legal 

counsel. 

Estimated Number of Respondents 

Consulting Private Counsel About a 

Binding Nondisclosure Agreement: 

The Agency estimates that five 

potential whistleblowers per year will 

consult private counsel about a binding 

nondisclosure agreement with their 

employer. This estimate is based on the 

approximately 50 individuals per year 

who may submit whistleblower 

information to the Agency. This 

estimate is also based on potential 

whistleblowers who consider 

submitting information to the Agency 

but choose not to submit information to 

the Agency after consulting with private 

counsel about a binding nondisclosure 

agreement with their employer. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours for Respondents Consulting 

Private Counsel About a Binding 

Nondisclosure Agreement: 

The Agency estimates that each 

private counsel will take approximately 

two hours to review a binding 

nondisclosure agreement, and the 

Agency estimates that five potential 

whistleblowers may consult with 

private counsel about a binding 

nondisclosure agreement per year. Thus, 

the Agency estimates that the estimated 

annual PRA burden of consulting with 

private counsel about a binding 

nondisclosure agreement is 10 hours per 

fiscal year (five respondents × two 

hours). 

Estimated Annual Cost of 

Respondents Consulting Private Counsel 

About a Binding Nondisclosure 

Agreement: 

NHTSA estimates the total annual 

burden cost for respondents consulting 

with private counsel about a binding 

nondisclosure agreement to be $5,320. 

The Agency bases the estimate on the 

following: 

Involvement and Cost of Legal 

Representatives: 

To estimate those expenses, the 

Agency makes the following 

assumptions: 

(i) The Agency will receive 50 

whistleblower submissions annually; 

(ii) Five potential whistleblowers will 

consult with private counsel about a 

binding nondisclosure agreement 

annually; 

(iii) Attorney costs will be on average 

$532 per hour; and 

(iv) Attorneys will bill on average two 

hours to review a binding nondisclosure 

agreement. 

Based on those assumptions, the 

Agency estimates that each year the cost 

of attorney time for consultation about 

a binding nondisclosure agreement will 

be $5,320 (($532 × two hours) × five 

respondents). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 513 

Administrative procedure and 

practice, Appeal procedures, Claims, 

Investigations, Imports, Lawyers, Motor 

vehicle safety, Privacy, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements, Tires, 

Whistleblowing. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, NHTSA adds 49 CFR part 513 

to read as follows: 

PART 513—WHISTLEBLOWER 

PROGRAM 

Sec. 

513.1 General. 

513.2 Definitions 

513.3 Representation. 

513.4 Procedures for submitting original 

information. 

513.5 Confidentiality. 

513.6 Prerequisites to the consideration of 

an award. 

513.7 Whistleblowers ineligible for an 

award. 

513.8 Provision of false information. 

513.9 Procedures for making a claim for a 

whistleblower award. 

513.10 Award determinations. 

513.11 Appeals of award determinations. 

513.12 Procedures applicable to the 

payment of awards. 

Appendix A to Part 513—Form WB–INFO 

Appendix B to Part 513—Form WB– 

RELEASE 

Appendix C to Part 513—Form WB–AWARD 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322 and 49 U.S.C. 

30172; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

§ 513.1 General. 

This part 513 describes the 

whistleblower program established by 

the Agency to implement the Motor 

Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act, 49 

U.S.C. 30172, explains procedures that 

a potential whistleblower must follow to 

be eligible for an award, and the 

circumstances under which information 

that may reasonably be expected to 

reveal the identity of a whistleblower 

may be disclosed by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA). Potential whistleblowers 

should read these procedures carefully 

because failure to take required steps in 

a timely fashion in conformance with 

these rules may result in 

disqualification from receiving an 

award. Questions about the 

whistleblower program or these rules 

should be directed to the NHTSA Office 

of the Chief Counsel at 

NHTSAWhistleblower@dot.gov. Unless 

expressly provided for in this part, no 

person is authorized to make any offer 

or promise, or otherwise bind the 

Agency with respect to the payment of 

any award or the amount thereof, and 

any such offer or promise will not be 

honored. 

§ 513.2 Definitions. 

(a) Statutory definitions. All terms 

used in this part have the same meaning 

as in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) or (b), unless 

otherwise defined in this part. 

(b) Other terms. As used in this part: 

Administrative action. The term 

‘‘administrative action’’ means all or a 

portion of an action, other than a 

judicial action, brought by the NHTSA 

or the U.S. Department of 

Transportation under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

301 that may result in civil penalties or 

other monetary payment paid to and 

collected by the United States 

government. It specifically includes 

settlement agreements and consent 

orders that are entered into by the 

Agency. 

Agency. The term ‘‘Agency’’ refers to 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). 

Collected monetary sanctions. The 

term ‘‘collected monetary sanctions’’ 

means monies, including penalties and 

interest, ordered or agreed to be paid 

and that have been collected by the 

United States, pursuant to the authority 

in 49 U.S.C. 30165 or under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 30170. 

Contractor. The term ‘‘contractor’’ 

means an individual presently or 

formerly providing goods or services to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101973 

a motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership pursuant to a 

contract. 

Covered action. The term ‘‘covered 

action’’ means any administrative or 

judicial action, including any related 

administrative or judicial action brought 

by the Secretary, NHTSA, or the 

Attorney General under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, or a regulation thereunder, 

that in the aggregate results in monetary 

sanctions exceeding $1,000,000. The 

over $1,000,000 threshold can be 

satisfied if the total amount of monetary 

sanctions paid by multiple defendants 

or parties and collected by the United 

States totals more than $1,000,000 in the 

covered action. 

Dealership. The term ‘‘dealership’’ 

means a person selling and distributing 

motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment primarily to purchasers that 

in good faith purchase the vehicles or 

equipment other than for resale. 

Employee. The term ‘‘employee’’ 

means an individual presently or 

formerly employed by a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership. 

Independent knowledge or analysis. 

The term ‘‘knowledge’’ as used in this 

part means factual information in the 

potential whistleblower’s possession 

that is not generally known or available 

to the public and is not already known 

to NHTSA. The potential whistleblower 

may gain independent knowledge from 

the potential whistleblower’s 

experiences, communications, and 

observations in the potential 

whistleblower’s business or social 

interactions. As used in this part, 

‘‘analysis’’ means the potential 

whistleblower’s examination and 

evaluation of information that may be 

generally or publicly available, but 

which reveals information that is not 

generally known or available to the 

public. This analysis must be the 

potential whistleblower’s own analysis, 

whether done alone or in combination 

with others. 

NHTSA will not consider the 

potential whistleblower’s information to 

be derived from the potential 

whistleblower’s independent knowledge 

or analysis if the potential 

whistleblower obtained the information: 

(i) Solely through a communication 

that was subject to the attorney-client 

privilege or work product doctrine; or 

(ii) By a means or in a manner that 

has been determined by a United States 

federal court or state court to violate 

applicable federal or state criminal law. 

Motor vehicle defect. The term ‘‘motor 

vehicle defect’’ means a defect in a 

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment. 

Noncompliance. A ‘‘noncompliance’’ 

occurs when a motor vehicle or item of 

motor vehicle equipment does not 

comply with an applicable Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. 

Original information. The term 

‘‘original information’’ means 

information that— 

(i) Is derived from the independent 

knowledge or analysis of an individual; 

(ii) Is not known to the Secretary or 

Agency from any other source, unless 

the individual is the original source of 

the information; 

(iii) Is not exclusively derived from an 

allegation made in a judicial or an 

administrative action, in a governmental 

report, a hearing, an audit, or an 

investigation, or from the news media, 

unless the individual is a source of the 

information; and 

(iv) Is provided to the Agency for the 

first time after December 4, 2015. 

Original information that leads to a 

successful resolution. The Agency will 

consider that the potential 

whistleblower provided original 

information that ‘‘leads to’’ a successful 

resolution of a covered action in the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The potential whistleblower gave 

the Agency original information that 

was sufficiently specific, credible and 

timely to cause the Agency to open an 

investigation, reopen an investigation 

that the Agency had closed, continue an 

investigation the Agency would not 

have continued but for the information, 

or to inquire concerning a different 

potential violation of Chapter 301, or a 

regulation thereunder, as part of a 

current investigation, and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Agency, 

or U.S Department of Justice brought a 

successful judicial or administrative 

action based in whole or in part on 

conduct that was the subject of the 

potential whistleblower’s original 

information; or 

(ii) The potential whistleblower gave 

the Agency original information about 

conduct that was already under 

investigation by the Agency and the 

potential whistleblower’s information 

significantly contributed to the success 

of the covered action and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Agency, 

or U.S. Department of Justice brought a 

judicial or administrative action that 

achieves a successful resolution based 

in whole or in part on conduct that was 

the subject of the potential 

whistleblower’s original information. 

Part supplier. The term ‘‘part 

supplier’’ means a manufacturer of 

motor vehicle equipment. 

Potential whistleblower. The term 

‘‘potential whistleblower’’ refers to an 

employee or contractor of a motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership submitting information to the 

Agency in accordance with and 

pursuant to this part. 

Related administrative or judicial 

action. The term ‘‘related administrative 

or judicial action’’ means an action that 

was brought under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

301 by the U.S. Department of Justice, 

the U.S Department of Transportation, 

or the Agency and is based on the 

original information provided by the 

whistleblower. 

Secretary. The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of Transportation. 

Successful resolution. A successful 

resolution, when referring to any 

administrative or judicial action brought 

by the Secretary, Agency, or the 

Attorney General relating to any 

potential motor vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, or a regulation thereunder, 

which is likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury, 

includes any settlement of the action by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Agency or the U.S. Department of 

Justice or final decision or judgment in 

whole or in partial favor of the Agency, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Whistleblower. The term 

‘‘whistleblower’’ means any employee 

or contractor of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership who voluntarily provides to 

the Agency original information relating 

to any motor vehicle defect, 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, or a regulation thereunder, 

which is likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury. 

§ 513.3 Representation. 

A whistleblower or potential 

whistleblower may be represented by a 

legal representative. 

§ 513.4 Procedures for submitting original 

information. 

(a) A potential whistleblower’s 

submission must be made by 

completing a WB–INFO form and 

submitting it to the Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, by email to 

NHTSAWhistleblower@dot.gov or other 

submission method expressly 

designated on NHTSA’s website for 

such submissions. 

(b) By completing the WB–INFO form, 

the potential whistleblower must 

declare under penalty of perjury at the 

time the whistleblower submits 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101974 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

information pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section that the information is true 

and correct to the best of the potential 

whistleblower’s knowledge and belief. 

(c) A potential whistleblower may 

provide original information to the 

Agency anonymously through use of a 

legal representative. The legal 

representative must submit the 

information on behalf of the potential 

whistleblower pursuant to the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. Prior to the legal 

representative’s submission, the 

potential whistleblower must provide 

the legal representative with a 

completed WB–INFO form that the 

potential whistleblower has signed 

under the penalty of perjury. When the 

legal representative makes the 

submission on behalf of the potential 

whistleblower, the legal representative 

must certify that the legal 

representative: 

(1) Has verified the potential 

whistleblower’s identity; 

(2) Has verified that the potential 

whistleblower is an employee or 

contractor of a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership; 

(3) Has reviewed the potential 

whistleblower’s signed WB–INFO form 

for accuracy and that the information 

contained therein is true and correct to 

the best of the legal representative’s 

knowledge, information and belief; and 

(4) Has obtained the potential 

whistleblower’s non-waivable consent 

to provide the Agency with the original 

WB–INFO form for the potential 

whistleblower in the event that the 

Agency requests it. 

(d) If a potential whistleblower 

submitted original information to the 

Agency after December 4, 2015 but 

before January 16, 2025, the submission 

will be deemed to satisfy the 

requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

§ 513.5 Confidentiality. 

(a) In General. Notwithstanding 49 

U.S.C. 30167, the Secretary and any 

officer or employee of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation shall not 

disclose any information, including 

information provided by a 

whistleblower to the Secretary, that 

could reasonably be expected to reveal 

the identity of a whistleblower, except 

in accordance with the provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 552a, unless: 

(1) Disclosure is required to a 

defendant or respondent in connection 

with a public proceeding instituted by 

the Secretary, the Agency, or any entity 

described in paragraph (c); 

(2) The whistleblower provides prior 

written consent for the information to be 

disclosed; or 

(3) The Secretary, or other officer or 

employee of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, receives the information 

through another source, such as during 

an inspection or investigation under 49 

U.S.C. 30166, and has the authority 

under other law to release the 

information. 

(b) Use by Attorney General. 

Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this 

section, nothing in this section is 

intended to limit the ability of the 

Attorney General to present such 

evidence to a grand jury or to share such 

evidence with potential witnesses or 

defendants in the course of an ongoing 

criminal investigation. 

(c) Availability to Federal Government 

Agencies. Notwithstanding paragraph 

(a) of this section, without the loss of its 

status as confidential in the hands of the 

Administrator, all information referred 

to in paragraph (a) of this section may, 

in the discretion of the Administrator, 

when determined by the Administrator 

to be necessary or appropriate to 

accomplish the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, be made available to the 

U.S. Department of Justice or an 

appropriate department or agency of the 

federal government, acting within the 

scope of its jurisdiction, provided that 

each entity shall maintain information 

as confidential in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (a). 

(d) Redaction. When disclosing any 

information under paragraph (a) of this 

section, the Secretary and any officer or 

employee of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation shall take reasonable 

measures not to reveal the identity of 

the whistleblower by taking measures 

not to reveal the whistleblower’s name, 

and redacting the whistleblower’s name 

when information is disclosed under 

paragraph (a). 

(e) Section 552(b)(3)(B). The identity 

of the whistleblower and the 

information provided to Secretary by 

the whistleblower shall be considered 

exempt from disclosure under the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 to the fullest 

extent permitted by law. 

(f) The whistleblower. The person 

should self-identify as a whistleblower 

at the time the person first submits 

original information relating to any 

potential motor vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirements under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 or a regulation thereunder 

by submitting a WB–INFO form. If the 

person is represented by a legal 

representative, that legal representative 

should identify the client as a 

whistleblower at the time the legal 

representative first submits original 

information relating to any potential 

motor vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirements under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 or regulation thereunder on 

behalf of the legal representative’s client 

in the WB–INFO form. 

§ 513.6 Prerequisites to the consideration 

of an award. 

(a) Subject to the eligibility 

requirements described in this part, 

NHTSA may, but is not required to, 

authorize payment of an award to one 

or more persons who: 

(1) Provide a voluntary submission to 

the Agency; 

(2) Provide in that submission original 

information relating to any potential 

motor vehicle defect, potential 

noncompliance, or any violation or 

alleged violation of any notification or 

reporting requirement of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 or a regulation thereunder, 

which is likely to cause unreasonable 

risk of death or serious physical injury; 

and 

(3) The original information provided 

in that submission leads to the 

successful resolution of a covered 

action. 

(b) To be eligible, the person must 

have given the Agency original 

information in the form and manner that 

the Agency requires in § 513.4. The 

Agency may, for good cause, waive this 

requirement. 

§ 513.7 Whistleblowers ineligible for an 

award. 

No award under § 513.10 shall be 

made: 

(a) If the amount of monetary 

sanctions collected in a covered action 

does not exceed $1,000,000; 

(b) To any whistleblower who is 

convicted of a criminal violation by a 

United States federal or state court 

related to the covered action for which 

the whistleblower otherwise could 

receive an award under this part; 

(c) To any whistleblower who, acting 

without direction from an applicable 

motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership, or agent thereof, 

deliberately causes or substantially 

contributes to the alleged violation of a 

requirement of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 or 

a regulation thereunder; 

(d) To any whistleblower who 

submits information to the Agency that 

is based on the facts underlying the 

covered action submitted previously by 

another whistleblower; 

(e) To any whistleblower who fails to 

provide the original information to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101975 

Agency in the form required by § 513.4 

without good cause shown; 

(f) To any whistleblower who

knowingly and intentionally makes any 

false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement 

or representation, or who makes or uses 

any false writing or document knowing 

the same to contain any false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent statement or entry; or 

(g) If the applicable motor vehicle

manufacturer, parts supplier, or 

dealership has an internal reporting 

mechanism in place to protect 

employees from retaliation, to any 

whistleblower who fails to report or 

attempt to report the information 

through such mechanism, unless: 

(1) The whistleblower reasonably

believed that such an internal report 

would have resulted in retaliation, 

notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 30171(a); 

(2) The whistleblower reasonably

believed that the information: 

(A) was already internally reported;

(B) was already subject to or part of

an internal inquiry or investigation; or 

(C) was otherwise already known to

the motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership; or 

(3) The Agency has good cause to

waive this requirement. 

§ 513.8 Provision of false information.

A person who knowingly and

intentionally makes any false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent statement or 

representation, or who makes or uses 

any false writing or document knowing 

the same to contain any false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent statement or entry, shall 

not be entitled to an award under this 

section and shall be subject to 

prosecution under section 1001 of title 

18. 

§ 513.9 Procedures for making a claim for

a whistleblower award.

(a) Whenever any administrative or

judicial action, including any related 

administrative or judicial action, 

brought by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Agency, or U.S. 

Department of Justice under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 in the aggregate results in 

collected monetary sanctions exceeding 

$1,000,000, the Agency will publish on 

the Agency’s website a ‘‘Notice of 

Covered Action.’’ Such Notice will be 

published subsequent to a final 

judgment, order, or agreement that 

alone, or in the aggregate, results in 

collected monetary sanctions exceeding 

$1,000,000. A claimant will have ninety 

(90) days from the date of the Notice of

Covered Action to file a claim,

including any attachments, for an award

based on that action, or the claim will

be barred. The claim is deemed filed on

the date that it is received by the

Agency.

(b) To file a claim for a whistleblower

award, the claimant must complete the 

WB–AWARD form and submit it no 

later than ninety (90) calendar days 

from the date of the Notice of Covered 

Action to NHTSA’s Office of the Chief 

Counsel by email to 

NHTSAWhistleblower@dot.gov or 

another method expressly designated on 

NHTSA’s website. If the ninetieth day 

falls on a weekend or federal holiday, 

the claim deadline is the next business 

day. 

(c) If the claimant provided original

information anonymously pursuant to 

§ 513.4, the claimant must disclose the

claimant’s identity on the WB–AWARD

form and the claimant’s identity must be

verified in a form and manner that is

acceptable to the Agency prior to the

authorization of payment of any award

to such claimant.

(d) If a claimant filed a claim for a

whistleblower award after December 4, 

2015 (the date of the enactment of the 

FAST Act) but before January 16, 2025, 

the claim submission will be deemed to 

meet the requirements of § 513.9. 

§ 513.10 Award determinations.

(a) Once the time for filing any

appeals of the covered action (and all 

related actions) has expired, or where an 

appeal has been filed, after all appeals 

in the covered action and related actions 

have concluded, and over $1,000,000 in 

monetary sanctions have been collected, 

the Agency will evaluate all timely 

whistleblower award claims submitted 

on a WB–AWARD form in accordance 

with the criteria set forth in this part. 

The Agency may require the claimant to 

provide additional information relating 

to the claimant’s eligibility for an award 

or satisfaction of any of the conditions 

for an award. 

(b) The determination of whether, to

whom, or in what amount to make an 

award shall be in the discretion of the 

Administrator. In determining whether 

to grant an award to a whistleblower 

eligible for an award and the amount of 

an award, the Administrator shall take 

into consideration, as appropriate: 

(1) Whether a whistleblower reported

or attempted to report the information 

internally to an applicable motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or 

dealership; 

(2) The significance of the original

information provided by the 

whistleblower to the successful 

resolution of the covered action; 

(3) The degree of assistance provided

by the whistleblower and any legal 

representative of the whistleblower in 

the covered action; 

(4) The statutory purpose of

incentivizing whistleblowers; and 

(5) The public interest or such

additional factors as the Administrator 

considers relevant. 

(c) If the Administrator determines

that an award is warranted, the 

Administrator shall determine the 

amount of such award or awards to one 

or more whistleblowers. Whistleblower 

awards shall be in an aggregate amount 

equal to— 

(1) Not less than 10 percent, in total,

of monetary sanctions collected in the 

covered action; and 

(2) Not more than 30 percent, in total,

of monetary sanctions collected in the 

covered action. 

(d) Following the Administrator’s

determination, the Agency will send 

each whistleblower claimant an Order 

setting forth whether the claim is 

granted or denied, and if granted, setting 

forth the award amount. If the 

Administrator determines that an award 

is warranted, in no event will the total 

amount awarded to all whistleblowers 

in the aggregate be less than 10 percent 

or greater than 30 percent of the amount 

of monetary sanctions collected in the 

covered action. 

(e) No contract with the Agency is

necessary for a whistleblower to receive 

an award. 

§ 513.11 Appeals of award determinations.

(a) A claimant may appeal any

determination made by the 

Administrator under § 513.10 to an 

appropriate court of appeals of the 

United States not later than 30 days 

after the Order is issued by the 

Administrator. 

(1) If no claimant files an appeal

within 30 days after the Order is issued 

by the Administrator, no appeals are 

permitted with respect to the claim that 

is the subject of the Order. 

(2) If any claimant appeals within 30

days after the Order is issued by the 

Administrator, no payments with 

respect to the covered action will be 

made until the appealed award 

determination action is concluded. 

(b) These rules do not entitle

claimants to obtain from the Agency any 

privileged materials such as predecisional, attorney-client privileged, 

attorney work product privileged, or 

internal deliberative process materials 

related to the Administrator’s Order 

and/or any privileged material relating 

to whether, to whom, and in what 

amount to make a whistleblower award. 

(c) The Agency may make redactions

to the materials constituting the record 

as necessary, including but not limited 

to making redactions to comply with 

statutory restrictions, the Agency’s 

enforcement and regulatory functions 

and regulations, and to comply with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101976 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

requests for confidential treatment from 

law enforcement, regulatory authorities, 

or persons submitting information to the 

Agency pursuant to 49 CFR part 512. 

(d) Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30172(h)(3), 

the court shall review the determination 

made by the Administrator in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 706. 

§ 513.12 Procedures applicable to the 

payment of awards. 

(a) A recipient of a whistleblower 

award is entitled to payment on the 

award only to the extent that a monetary 

sanction upon which the award is based 

is collected in the covered action. 

(b) Payment of a whistleblower award 

for a monetary sanction collected in 

connection with a covered action shall 

be made within a reasonable time 

following the later of: 

(1) The date on which the monetary 

sanction totaling over $1,000,000 is 

collected; or 

(2) The completion of the appeals 

process for all award determination 

claims arising from the Administrator’s 

Order relating to the covered action. 

Appendix A to Part 513—Form WB– 

INFO 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.047</GPH>

0MB Number: 2127-0767 

Exp. [DATE] 

NHTSA Form 1684 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

FORM WB-INFO 

WHISTLEBLOWER SUBMISSION 

See Privacy Act Statement, Submission Procedures, and Completion Instructions below. 

1. LastName 2. First Name 

4. Street Address 

6. City 7. State/Province 8. ZIP/Postal Code 

10. Telephone 11. Alt. Phone 12. Email Address 

14. Occupation 

15. Current Employer Name 

16. Current Employer Address 

17. Your relationship to the company about whom the concern is raised: 

1. Company Name 

2. Street Address 

3. M.I. 

5. Apartment/Unit# 

9. Country 

13. Preferred Method 

of Communication 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101977 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.048</GPH>

3. City 4. State/Province 5. ZIP/Postal Code 6. Country 

7. Do you or did you work for the motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier or dealership about which the concern is raised? 

[] Yes [] No 

If yes, please provide dates. 

If no, please identify what motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier or dealership you work or worked for: 

8. Does this motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier or dealership have an internal reporting mechanism? 

[] Yes [] No [] I Don't Know 

9. If the answer to number 8 above is yes, did you report this issue through the internal reporting mechanism? 

[] Yes. Date Reported: 

[] No. Reason for not reporting 

1. Legal representative's Name 

2. Firm Name 

3. Street Address 

4. City 5. State/Province 6. ZIP/Postal Code 7. Country 

8. Telephone 9. Email address 
101978 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.049</GPH>

1. Date( s) of alleged conduct: 2. Is the conduct ongoing? 

[] Yes [] No [] I Don'tKnow 

3a. Have you or your legal representative had any prior communication with the NHTSA concerning this matter?[] Yes [] No 

3b. If yes, provide the name of the NHTSA staffmember(s) with whom you or your legal representative communicated and date 

of such communication: 

4a. Ts your allegation related to a potential safety-related defect or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard? [] Yes [] No 

4b. If yes, please provide a detailed description of allegation and a detailed description of how the allegation affects 

vehicle/system/component performance and/or compliance. Please include the make, model, model year, part number, 

component number, etc. if known 

5a. Is your allegation related to any violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement of the Safety Act? 

[] Yes [] No 

5b. Provide a description of the notification or reporting issue. State in detail all facts pertinent to the alleged violation. 

6. Describe all supporting materials in your possession and the availability and location of any additional supporting materials not 

in your possession. If necessary, please use additional sheets. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101979 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.050</GPH>

1. Describe how you learned about or obtained the information that supports your allegations. In addition, if any information was 

obtained from a public source, identify the source with as much particularity as possible. 

2. Identify with particularity any documents or other information in your submission that you believe could reasonably be 

expected to reveal your identity and explain the basis for your belief that your identity could be reasonably expected to be revealed if 

the documents or information were disclosed to a third party. 

3a. Have you or your legal representative taken any other action regarding the issue or your allegations? [] Yes [] No 

3b. If"Yes," please provide details. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 

4. Did you acquire the information through a means or manner that has been determined by a United States federal court or a 

state court to violate applicable federal or state criminal law? [] Yes [] No 

If the answer to this question is yes, please contact NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel before you submit this form. 

5. Did you acquire the original information that you are submitting to NHTSA solely through a communication that was subject 

to a privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine? [] Yes [] No 

If the answer to this question is yes, please contact NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel before you submit this form. 

6. Provide any additional information that you think may be relevant. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 
101980 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.051</GPH>

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information contained herein is true and correct to the 

best ofmy knowledge, information and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and ineligible for a 

whistleblower award if, in my submission of information, my other dealings with the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and willfully make any false, 

fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or use any false writing or document knowing that the writing or document 

contains any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry. 

Print Name 

Signature Date 

I certify that I have reviewed this form for accuracy and that the information contained herein is true and correct to the best ofmy 

knowledge, information and belief. 

I further certify that I have verified the identity of the person on whose behalf this form is being submitted by viewing the 

person's valid, unexpired government issued identification (e.g., driver's license, passport) and will retain an original, signed 

copy of this form, with Section F signed by the person, in my records. 

I further certify that I have obtained the person's non-waivable consent to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration with the original signed WB-INFO form in the event that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

requests it. 

Print Name of Legal representative and Law Firm, if Applicable 

Signature Date 

Privacy Act Statement 

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) inform individuals of the following when asking for information. This form may be 

used by an employee or contractor of a motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership, 

or a legal representative acting on such person's behalf, who wishes to provide NHTSA with 

information relating to any potential motor vehicle defect, potential noncompliance, or any 

violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

301 or regulation thereunder, which is likely to cause unreasonable risk of death or serious 

physical injury. The information provided will allow the Agency to evaluate the claim and elicit 

information relevant to whistleblower eligibility requirements. This information may be 

disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice or an appropriate department or agency of the 

Federal Government, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, consistent with the 

confidentiality requirements set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30172(£). NHTSA may also disclose 

information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower in certain 

limited situations, including when the whistleblower provides prior written consent. Id. 

Furnishing the information contained in this form is voluntary but a decision not to do so will 

result in you not being eligible for award consideration. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101981 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.052</GPH>

Questions concerning this form may be directed to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel by email to NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov. 

Notice ofWhistleblower Rights and Protections 

This brief description will provide you with an overview of the whistle blower rights and 

protections. 

Whistleblowers, as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30172(a)(6), have a right to keep their 

identity confidential in most situations. 49 U.S.C. 30172(±). Generally speaking, any information 

which reasonably could be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower may be disclosed 

only under limited circumstances. One circumstance where NHTSA could reveal such 

information is if the whistleblower gives prior written consent. 49 U.S.C. 30172(f)(l)(B). 

The Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, gives the public access to records of the 

Federal Government. Individuals can obtain information from many categories ofrecords of the 

Government--notjust materials that apply to them personally. NHTSA must honor requests 

under the FOIA, with some exceptions. Information that could reasonably be expected to reveal 

the identity of a whistleblower is exempted from FOIA disclosure by statute. See 49 U.S.C. 

30172(±)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(B). 

NHTSA may disclose information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a 

whistleblower if it follows the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a (the Privacy Act of 1974). 49 U.S.C. 

30172(±)(1). The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system ofrecords 

(where information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, 

symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual) absent the written consent of 

the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of the twelve statutory conditions. 

Furthermore, under 49 U.S.C. 30171, employees providing certain motor vehicle safety 

information have protections from discrimination. Under 49 U.S.C. 30171(a)(l), a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, parts supplier or dealership may not discharge an employee or otherwise 

discriminate against the employee because the employee provided, caused to be provided, or is 

about to provide (with knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or 

the Secretary of Transportation information relating to any motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, 

or any violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement of the Safety 

Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 

General Information 

• To be eligible for an award under NHTSA's whistleblower program, you must first 

provide us with your information through one of two ways. After completing this WBINFO form, send it to NHTSA electronically to NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov, or 

submit it by any such method that the Agency may expressly designate on its website 

(https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/whistleblower-program). 

• Submitting your information is the first step. If the information you submit leads to the 

successful resolution of a covered action that in the aggregate results in collected 

monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000, you will have an opportunity at a later date to 

submit a claim for an award. That is a separate process and is described in our 
101982 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.053</GPH>

whistleblower rules at 49 CPR Part 513. 

• You have the right to submit information anonymously. If you are submitting information 

anonymously, you must be represented by a legal representative in this matter and 

Sections C and G of this form must be completed. Otherwise, you may, but are not 

required to, have a legal representative. If you are submitting information anonymously, 

please skip Part I of these instructions and proceed directly to Part IL Otherwise, please 

begin by following the instructions in Part I. 

Part I: Instructions for filers who are disclosing their identity to NHTSA 

• You are required to complete Sections A, B, D, E, and P of this form. If you are 

represented by a legal representative in this matter, you must also complete section C. 

Specific instructions for answering these questions can be found in Part IV below. 

• If you are represented, your legal representative does not need to complete Section G. 

• You will need to submit the WB-INPO form in accordance with the Submission 

Procedures in 49 CPR Part 513. 

Part II: Instructions for anonymous filers 

• If you are submitting information anonymously, you must be represented by a legal 

representative on this matter. 

• You are required to complete Sections A, B, C, D, E, and P of this form and give the 

signed original to your legal representative. Specific instructions for answering these 

questions can be found in Part IV below. 

• Your legal representative must retain your signed original WB-INPO form. 

Part III. Instructions for legal representatives representing anonymous filers 

• Obtain a completed and signed original WB-INPO form, filled out in accordance with 

the Part II above. You must retain this signed original in your records. 

• You must prepare a WB-INPO form, completing Sections B, C, D, and E with your 

client's information. You must also sign the declaration in Section G. 

• You will need to submit the WB-INPO form you completed in accordance with 

submission procedures in 49 CPR Part 513. 

Part IV. Instructions for Completing Form WB-INFO 

Section A: Information About Yourself 

Questions 1-16: Please provide the following information about yourself: 

o Last name, first mame, and middle initial; 

o Complete address, including city, state/province, zip/postal code, and country; 

o Your telephone number, and if available, an alternate number where you can be 

reached; 

o Your email address (to facilitate communications, you are strongly encouraged to 

provide your email address); 

o Your preferred method of communication; 

o Your occupation; 

o Your current employer; 

o Your current employer's address; and 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101983 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.054</GPH>

o Your relationship to the company about whom the concern is raised. 

Section B: Information About the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer, Part Supplier, or 

Dealership About Which the Concern is Raised 

Questions 1-7: Please provide the following information about the motor vehicle 

manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership about which the concern is raised: 

o Company name of the motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier or dealership; 

o Complete address of the motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership, 

including city, state/province, zip/postal code, and country; and 

o Complete whether you work or worked for the motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership about whom the concern is raised. If yes, please provide dates 

that you work or worked for the company. Ifno, provide the name of the motor 

vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership you work or worked for. 

Question 8: Please check the correct box stating whether the motor vehicle manufacturer, 

part supplier, or dealership about which the concern was raised has or had an internal 

reporting mechanism. The choices are yes, no, and I don't know. 

Question 9: If you checked the "yes" box in response to the question of whether the 

motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier or dealership had an internal reporting 

mechanism, please provide the following information: 

o If you reported the issue through your company's internal reporting mechanism, 

check the box "yes" and provide the date that you reported to the internal reporting 

mechanism. 

o If you did not report the issue through your company's internal reporting mechanism, 

check the box "no" and provide your reason for not reporting to the internal reporting 

mechanism. 

Section C: Legal representative Information. Complete this section only if you are 

represented by a legal representative in this matter. If you are submitting your information 

anonymously and you want to be considered for an award under NHTSA's whistleblower 

program, you must be represented by a legal representative, and this section must be completed. 

Questions 1-9: Provide the following information about the legal representative 

representing you in this matter: 

o Legal representative's name; 

o The legal representative's firm's name; 

o The firm's complete address, including city, state, and zip code; 

o Your legal representative's telephone number; and 

o Your legal representative's email address. 

Section D: Tell Us About the Issue Involving the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer, Part 

Supplier, or Dealership: 

Question 1: Please provide the date that the alleged conduct began. 

Question 2: Check the option that best describes whether the alleged conduct is ongoing. 

Question 3a: Indicate whether you or your legal representative have had any prior 

communication with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") 

concerning this matter. 
101984 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.055</GPH>

Question 3b: If you answered "yes" to Question 3a, provide the name of the NHTSA staff 

member(s) with whom you or your counsel communicated and date of such communication. 

Question 4a: Check the option that best describes whether your allegation is related to a potential 

safety-related defect or noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS). 

Question 4b: If you answered "yes" to Question 4a, provide a detailed description of the 

allegation and a detailed description of how the allegation affects vehicle/system/component 

performance and/or compliance. Please include the make, model, model year, part number, 

component number, etc. if known. 

Question 5a: Check the option that best describes whether your allegation is related to any 

violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement of the Safety Act. 

Question 5b: If you answered "yes" to Question 5a, provide a description of the notification or 

reporting issue. State in detail all facts pertinent to the alleged violation. 

Question 6: Describe all supporting materials in your possession and the availability and location 

of additional supporting materials not in your possession. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 

Section E: Additional Information 

Question 1: Describe how you learned about or obtained the information that supports your 

allegations. In addition, if any information was obtained from a public source, identify the source 

with as much particularity as possible. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 

Question 2: Identify with particularity any documents or information in your submission that you 

believe could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity, and explain the basis for your belief 

that your identity could be reasonably expected to be revealed if the documents or information are 

disclosed to a third party. 

Question 3a: Check the option that best describes whether you or your legal representative have 

taken any other action regarding the issue or your allegations. 

Question 3b: If your answer to Question 3a was "Yes," provide details. Use additional sheets if 

necessary. 

Question 4: Check the option that best describes whether you acquired information through a 

means or manner that has been determined by a United States federal court or a state court to 

violate applicable federal or state criminal law. The question also contains a statement that if the 

answer to this question is yes, to please contact NHTSA' s Office of the Chief Counsel before you 

submit this form. 

Question 5: Check the option that best describes whether you acquired the original information 

that you are submitting to NHTSA solely through a communication that was subject to a 

privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. The question 

also contains a statement that if the answer to this question is yes, to please contact NHTSA's 

Office of the Chief Counsel before you submit this form. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101985 

Appendix B to Part 513—Form WB– 

RELEASE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.056</GPH> ER17DE24.057</GPH>

Question 6: Provide any additional information that you think may be relevant. Attach additional 

sheets if necessary. 

Section F: Prospective Whistleblower's Declaration 

This is to be completed and signed by the person submitting the information. 

Section G: Legal representative Certification 

This is to be completed and signed by a legal representative for an anonymous person submitting 

information. If you have a legal representative and are not submitting this form anonymously, 

this section does not need to be completed. 

0MB Number: 2127-0767 

Exp. [DATE] 

NHTSA Form 1684 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

FORM WB-RELEASE 

WHISTLEBLOWER RELEASE FORM 

See Notice of Whistleblower Rights and Protections, Privacy Act Statement, Submission Procedures, and Completion 

Instructions below. 

1. LastName 2. First Name 3. M.I. 

4. Street Address 5. Apartment/Unit# 

6. City 7. State/Province 8. ZIP/Postal Code 9. Country 

10. Name of the motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, and/or dealership to which this issue relates: 
101986 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.058</GPH>

I understand that in the course of an inquiry or analysis surrounding my allegations, it may become necessary for NHTSA to 

reveal information that reasonably could be expected to reveal my identity to persons or their counsel or agents at the 

organization or institution against which such allegations are made or other entities. 

□ CONSENT - I have read and understand the above information and authorize NHTSA to reveal any information 

that could reasonably be expected to reveal my identity to persons at the organization or institution against which my 

allegations are made, or their agents or counsel, to governmental entities outside the United States and to other 

persons or entities that NHTSA determines should have access to this information to assist in NHTSA's analysis, 

inquiry or investigation. I further understand that I am not required to consent to this release, and do so 

voluntarily. 

Notice ofWhistleblower Rights and Protections 

This brief description will provide you with an overview of the whistle blower rights and 

protections. 

Whistleblowers, as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30172(a)(6), have a right to keep their 

identity confidential in most situations. 49 U.S.C. 30172(f). Generally speaking, any information 

which reasonably could be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower can be disclosed 

only under limited circumstances. One circumstance where NHTSA could reveal such 

information is if the whistleblower gives prior written consent. 49 U.S.C. 30172(f)(l)(B). 

The Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, gives the public access to records of the 

Federal Government. Individuals can obtain information from many categories ofrecords of the 

Government--notjust materials that apply to them personally. NHTSA must honor requests 

under the FOIA, with some exceptions. Information that could reasonably be expected to reveal 

the identity of a whistleblower is exempted from FOIA disclosure by statute. See 49 U.S.C. 

30172(f)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(B). 

NHTSA may disclose information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a 

whistleblower if it follows the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a (the Privacy Act of 1974). 49 U.S.C. 

30172(f)(l). The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system ofrecords 

(where information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, 

symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual) absent the written consent of 

the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory conditions. 

Furthermore, under 49 U.S.C. 30171, employees providing certain motor vehicle safety 

information have protections from discrimination. Under 49 U.S.C. 30171(a)(l), a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, parts supplier or dealership may not discharge an employee or otherwise 

discriminate against the employee because the employee provided, caused to be provided, or is 

about to provide (with knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or 

the Secretary of Transportation information relating to any motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, 

or any violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement of the Safety 

Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et. seq.). 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101987 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.059</GPH>

Privacy Act Statement 

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

("NHTSA") inform individuals of the following when asking for information. This form may be 

used by an employee or contractor of a motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership 

who wishes to provide prior written consent for the Agency to disclose information which could 

reasonably be expected to reveal their identity. Furnishing this form is voluntary. 

Questions concerning this form may be directed to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel by email at NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov, or a 

NHTSA attorney with whom you have previously been in contact. 

General Information and Submission Procedures 

• This form should be used by persons that want to provide prior written consent to the 

Agency to disclose information which could reasonably be expected to reveal their 

identity. 

• You must sign the WB-RELEASE form as the prospective whistleblower. 

• You must submit your form to NHTSA in one of following ways: by emailing it to 

NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov or by any such method that the Agency may expressly 

designate on its website (https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/whistleblowerprogram). 

Instructions for Completing Form WB-RELEASE 

Section A: Information 

Questions 1-9: Please provide the following information about yourself: 

o last name, first name, and middle initial; and 

o Complete address, including city, state/province, zip/postal code, and country. 

Question 10: Please provide the name of motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier and/or 

dealership to which the issue relates. 

Section B: Release 

Check the box before the word "CONSENT" to indicate your consent to allow the Agency to 

reveal any information that could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity to persons at the 

organization or institution against which your allegations are made, or their agents or counsel, to 

governmental entities outside the United States and to other persons or entities that NHTSA 

determines should have access to this information to assist in NHTSA's analysis, inquiry or 

investigation. 

This section also informs you that you are not required to consent to this release and that you do 

so voluntarily. 

Section C: Prospective Whistleblower's Signature 

This section must be signed and dated by the prospective whistleblower. 
101988 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix C to Part 513—Form WB– 

AWARD 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.060</GPH>

0MB Number: 2127-0767 

Exp. [DATE] 

NHTSA Form 1684 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

FORMWB-AWARD 

WHISTLEBLOWER A WARD APPLICATION 

See Privacy Act Statement, Submission Procedures, and Completion Instructions below. 

4. Street Address 

6. City 7. State!Province 

10. Telephone 11. Alt. Phone 

1. Legal Representative's Name 

2. Firm Name 

3. Street Address 

4. City 5. State!Province 

8. Telephone 9. Email Address 

8. ZIP!Postal Code 

12. Email Address 

5. Apartment/Unit# 

9. Country 

13. Preferred Method of 

Communication 

6. ZIP!Postal Code 7. Country 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101989 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.061</GPH>

1. Did you acquire the original information that you submitted to NHTSA solely through a communication that was 

subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine? 

[] Yes [] No 

2. Did you acquire the original information that you submitted to NHTSA by a means or manner that was determined by a 

United States federal court or state court to violate applicable federal or state criminal law? 

[] Yes [] No 

3. Are you currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation in the United States, or have you been 

convicted of a criminal violation by a United States federal or state court, in connection with the allegations or 

conduct that you submitted to the NHTSA? 

[] Yes [] No 

4. Indicate whether any of the factors in 49 CFR 513.7 apply, which could make you ineligible for an award. 

[] Yes [] No 

5. If you answered "Yes" to any of Questions above, provide details. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 

1. How did you submit original information to NHTSA? 

[] By email to NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov 

[] Other: _______ _ 

2. Date(s) that you submitted the information: 

3. Name of motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier and/or dealership to which this issue relates 

1. Date ofrelevant Notice of Covered Action 

2. Notice Number 

3. Case Name 

4. Case Number 

5. Date of relevant Notice of Covered Action for any related action 

6. Notice Number of Related Action 

7. Case Name of Related Action 

8. Case Number of Related Action 
101990 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.062</GPH>

Explain the basis for your belief that you should receive an award in connection with your submission of information to 

NHTSA. Specifically address how you believe you voluntarily provided NHTSA with original information that led to the 

successful resolution of a covered action. Provide any information that you think may be relevant in light of the criteria 

for determining the amount of an award set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30172 and 49 CFR Part 513. Use additional sheets, if 

necessary. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information contained herein is true and 

correct to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and 

ineligible for a whistleblower award if, in my submission of information or other interactions with the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and 

willfully make any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or use any false writing or document 

knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry. 

Print Name 

Signature Date 

Privacy Act Statement 

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

("NHTSA") inform individuals of the following when asking for information. This form may be 

used by an employee or contractor of a motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership, 

or a legal representative acting on such person's behalf, who wishes to apply for a whistleblower 

award for providing original information that led to the successful resolution of a covered action. 

The information provided will allow the Agency to evaluate the claim and elicit information 

relevant to whistleblower eligibility requirements. Furnishing the information is voluntary but a 

decision not to do so will result in you not being eligible for award consideration. 

Questions concerning this form may be directed to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel by email to NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov or a 

NHTSA attorney with whom you have previously been in contact. 

General Information 

• This form should be used by persons making a claim for a whistleblower award in 

connection with information provided to NHTSA. To be eligible for an award, you must 

meet all the requirements set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30172 and the rules thereunder, as 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101991 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.063</GPH>

contained in 49 CFR Part 513. 

• You must sign the WB-A WARD form as the claimant. If you provided your information 

to NHTSA anonymously, you must now disclose your identity on this form and your 

identity must be verified in a form and a manner that is acceptable to the Agency prior to 

the payment of any award. 

• Your WB-A WARD form, and any attachments thereto, must be received by NHTSA 

within ninety (90) days of the date of the Notice of Covered Action to which the claim 

relates. 

• You must submit your form to NHTSA in one of following two ways: emailing it to 

NHTSA Whistleblower@dot.gov or by any such method that the Agency may expressly 

designate on its website (https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/whistleblowerprogram). 

Instructions for Completing Form WB-A WARD 

Section A: Claimant's Information 

Questions 1-13: Please provide the following information about yourself: 

o Last name, first name, and middle initial; 

o Your complete address, including city, state/province, zip/postal code, and country; 

o Your telephone number, and if available, an alternate number where you can be 

reached; 

o Your email address (to facilitate communications, you are strongly encouraged to 

provide your email address); and 

o Your preferred method of communication. 

Section B: Legal representative Information. Complete this section only if you are represented 

by a legal representative in this matter. If you are not represented by a legal representative in this 

matter, leave this Section blank. 

Questions 1-9: Provide the following information about the legal representative representing you 

in this matter: 

o Your legal representative's name; 

o The firm name; 

o Your legal representative's complete address, including city, state, and zip code; 

o Your legal representative's telephone number; and 

o Your legal representative's email address. 

Section C: Eligibility Requirements and Other Information 

Question 1: Indicate whether you acquired the original information that you submitted to 

NHTSA solely through a communication that was subject to the attorney-client privilege or 

attorney work product doctrine. 

Question 2: Indicate whether you acquired the original information that you submitted to 

NHTSA by a means or manner that was determined by a United States federal court or state 

court to violate applicable federal or state criminal law. 
101992 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.064</GPH>

Question 3: Indicate whether you are currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation in 

the United States or whether you have been convicted of a criminal violation by a United States 

federal or state court in connection with the allegations or conduct that you submitted to 

NHTSA. 

Question 4: Indicate whether any of the factors in 49 CFR 513.7 apply, which could make you 

ineligible for an award. 

Question 5: If you answered "yes" to Questions 1, 2, 3, or 4 above, provide details. Use 

additional sheets if necessary. 

Section D: Whistleblower Information Details 

Questions 1-3: Provide the following information about the whistleblower information that you 

submitted to NHTSA: 

o Select the method by which you submitted original information to NHTSA. If you 

selected "Other" describe how you submitted the information; 

o Provide the date that you submitted the original information to NHTSA; and 

o Provide the name of the motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, and/or dealership 

to which the issue relates. 

Section E: Notice of Covered Action 

The process for making a claim for a whistleblower award begins with the publication of a 

"Notice of Covered Action" on NHTSA's website. This notice is published whenever a judicial 

or administrative action brought under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 by NHTSA, the U.S. Department 

of Transportation, or the U.S. Department of Justice results in collected monetary sanctions 

exceeding $1,000,000. 

A Notice of Covered Action is published on NHTSA' s website subsequent to the entry of a final 

judgment, order or agreement that by itself, or collectively with other judgments, orders or 

agreements previously entered in the action, results in collected monetary sanctions exceeding 

the $1,000,000 threshold. 

Question 1 : Provide the date of the Notice of Covered action to which this claim relates. 

Question 2: Provide the notice number of the Notice of Covered Action. 

Question 3: Provide the case name referenced in the Notice of Covered Action. 

Question 4: Provide the case number referenced in the Notice of Covered Action. 

Question 5: Provide the date of the relevant Notice of Covered Action for any related action. 

Question 6: Provide the notice number of the related action. 

Question 7: Provide the case name of the related action. 

Question 8: Provide the case number of the related action. 

Section F: Award Justification 

Use this section to explain the basis for your belief that you should be granted an award in 

connection with your submission of information to NHTSA. Specifically address how you 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101993 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.5. 

Sophie Shulman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29268 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 241112–0291; RTID 0648– 

XR126] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Reclassification of Pillar 

Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus) From 

Threatened to Endangered 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is changing the status 

of pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus) 

from threatened to endangered on the 

Federal List of Threatened and 

Endangered Species. We have 

considered the 5-year review of the 

status of D. cylindrus, expert reviewer 

comments, and public comments 

submitted on the proposed rule. Based 

on this information, we have 

determined that D. cylindrus is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Thus, we 

are changing the status of D. cylindrus 

from threatened to endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments that were 

submitted on the proposed rule to 

change the status of D. cylindrus are 

available at: https://

www.regulations.gov identified by 

docket number NOAA–NMFS–2023– 

0002. A list of references cited in the 

final rule and other supporting materials 

are available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/pillarcoral/conservation-management, or by 

submitting a request to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

Regional Office, Protected Resources 

Division, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, Florida 33701. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison Moulding, 727–551–5607, 

alison.moulding@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 10, 2014, we published 

a final rule listing D. cylindrus, along 

with 4 other Caribbean coral species and 

15 Indo-Pacific coral species, as 

threatened under the ESA (79 FR 53851, 

September 10, 2014). In early 2021, we 

announced a 5-year review of 7 

threatened Caribbean coral species, 

including D. cylindrus (86 FR 1091, 

January 7, 2021) to determine whether 

the listing classification of these species 

was still accurate. Based on the findings 

of the 5-year review (NMFS, 2022), we 

published a proposed rule to change the 

status of D. cylindrus from threatened to 

endangered (88 FR 59494, August 29, 

2023). We solicited peer review of the 

scientific information contained in the 

proposed rule from three independent 

experts from the scientific community 

who have expertise in D. cylindrus 

biology, ecology, conservation, and 

threats to the species, and we 

incorporated their comments prior to 

publication of the proposed rule. We 

requested comments on the proposed 

rule from the public during a 60-day 

comment period and held a virtual 

public hearing on September 26, 2023, 

at which we also accepted public 

comments. 

In this final rule, we are reclassifying 

D. cylindrus from a threatened species 

to an endangered species under the 

ESA. We have determined that D. 

cylindrus is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. This final determination is 

based on the information in the 5-year 

review, from expert peer reviewers, and 

from public comments, which together 

comprise the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

Listing Determinations Under the ESA 

Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as any species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range and 

a threatened species as one that is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range (16 

U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Thus, an 

‘‘endangered species’’ is one that is 

presently in danger of extinction. A 

‘‘threatened species,’’ on the other hand, 

is not presently in danger of extinction 

but is likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future (i.e., at a later time). 

So, the primary statutory difference 

between a threatened and endangered 

species is the timing of when a species 

is in danger of extinction, either 

presently (endangered) or not presently 

but within the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER17DE24.065</GPH>

believe you voluntarily provided NHTSA with original information that led to the successful 

resolution of a covered action. Provide any information that you think may be relevant in light of 

the criteria for determining the amount of an award set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30172 and 49 CFR Part 

513. 

49 U.S.C. 30172(c) provides that in determining an award made under 49 U.S.C. 30172(b), the 

Secretary shall take into consideration: (i) if appropriate, whether a whistleblower reported or 

attempted to report the information internally to an applicable motor vehicle manufacturer, part 

supplier, or dealership; (ii) the significance of the original information provided by the 

whistle blower to the successful resolution of the covered action; (iii) the degree of assistance 

provided by the whistle blower and any legal representative of the whistle blower in the covered 

action; and (iv) such additional factors as the Secretary considers relevant. 

Section G: Claimant's Declaration 

This section must be completed and signed by the claimant.