This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

1909 

Vol. 90, No. 6 

Friday, January 10, 2025 

1Water Quality Standards Tools for Tribes, 

https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-qualitystandards-tools-tribes; Tribes and Water Quality 

Standards; https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/tribesand-water-quality-standards; Water Quality 

Standards Academy; https://www.epa.gov/wqstech/water-quality-standards-academy. 

2The EPA’s website, EPA Actions on Tribal Water 

Quality Standards and Contacts, lists these Tribes 

and the dates their TAS authority and WQS were 

approved: https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/epaactions-tribal-water-quality-standards-and-contacts. 

The EPA updates this list continually. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 131, 230, and 233 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0405; FRL–5868–04– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF62 

Federal Baseline Water Quality 

Standards for Indian Reservations; 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (the EPA or agency) is 

withdrawing the proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Federal Baseline Water Quality 

Standards for Indian Reservations,’’ 

which published in the Federal Register 

on May 5, 2023. The EPA is electing to 

withdraw and not finalize the proposed 

rule at this time. Instead, the EPA 

intends to focus the agency’s resources 

on engaging with Tribes to support 

Tribes’ efforts to seek authority to 

administer their own water quality 

standards (WQS) program under the 

Clean Water Act’s provision for eligible 

Tribes to be treated in a similar manner 

as states (TAS). The EPA will continue 

to work closely with, and offer support 

to, Tribes that are interested in pursuing 

TAS to administer a WQS program and 

developing their own WQS under the 

Clean Water Act. 

DATES: As of January 10, 2025, the 

proposed rule published on May 5, 

2023, at 88 FR 29496, is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. EPA, Office of Water 

(MC 4305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Ray, Office of Science and 

Technology, Standards and Health 

Protection Division, Office of Water (MC 

4305T), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566– 

1433, ray.james@epa.gov. Additional 

information is also available online at 

https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/ 

promulgation-tribal-baseline-waterquality-standards-under-clean-wateract. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of May 5, 2023 (88 FR 

29496), the EPA issued a proposed rule 

to establish Federal water quality 

standards (WQS) for Indian reservation 

waters that currently do not have WQS 

in effect under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), with limited exceptions. These 

WQS (referred to as baseline WQS) 

would establish human health and 

environmental objectives as the basis for 

CWA protections. 

At this time, the EPA is withdrawing 

this proposed rule to focus the agency’s 

resources on engaging with Tribes to 

support Tribes’ efforts to seek authority 

to administer their own WQS program 

under the CWA’s provision for eligible 

Tribes to be treated in a similar manner 

as states (TAS) and develop their own 

WQS under the CWA. 

The EPA has worked closely with 

Tribes to provide information about the 

TAS and WQS approval processes and 

has developed materials to assist Tribes 

that decide to work towards EPAapproved WQS.1 To date, 52 of the 84 

Tribes with TAS have submitted Tribal 

WQS that the EPA has approved as 

applicable WQS for the Tribes’ Indian 

reservation waters.2 It remains the 

EPA’s preference for Tribes to obtain 

TAS and develop WQS under the CWA 

that are tailored to the Tribes’ 

individual environmental goals and 

reservation waters. The EPA will 

continue to work with Tribes to build 

their capacity and facilitate their 

progression through the TAS and WQS 

development and adoption processes. 

The EPA provided a 90-day public 

comment period after publishing the 

proposed rule. The EPA received 3,314 

comments, 59 of which are considered 

unique comments that addressed a 

range of issues pertaining to the 

proposed rule. After consideration of 

that input and several complex issues 

raised, the agency has insufficient time 

to issue a final rule before the end of the 

current Administration, and 

independently, as explained above, is 

choosing to shift its focus to supporting 

the development and adoption of WQS 

by Tribes for their reservation waters. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31219 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 577 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0001] 

RIN 2127–AL66 

Updated Means of Providing Recall 

Notification 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP–21) and the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act 

(FAST Act), NHTSA is proposing to 

amend the means of required recall 

notification to include notification by 

electronic means, in addition to firstclass mail, and proposing certain other 

attendant obligations related to this 

requirement. NHTSA is also proposing 

to revise certain language that is 

currently required for recall 

notifications, as well as to update 

certain language in the regulation and 

the office designation for NHTSA’s 

Recall Management Division and 

NHTSA’s web address. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2025. In compliance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

NHTSA is also seeking comment on a 

previously approved collection. See the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section under 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses below. 

Please submit all comments relating to 

the information collection requirements 

to NHTSA and the Office of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1910 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

1Public Law 112–141, 31310, 126 Stat. 771 

(2012). 

2 Id. 

3Public Law 114–94, 24104, 129 Stat. 1703 

(2015). 

4 81 FR 4007 (Jan. 25, 2016). 

5 81 FR 60332 (Sept. 1, 2016). 

6See ‘‘Tips for Increasing Recall Completion 

Rates,’’ https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehiclemanufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completionrates. 

7See id. 

Management and Budget (OMB) at the 

address listed in the ADDRESSES section 

on or before March 11, 2025. Comments 

to OMB are most useful if submitted 

within 30 days of publication. 

Proposed compliance date: NHTSA 

proposes to make the electronic 

notification requirements in this 

proposed rule applicable to recalls filed 

one year or later following publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

Early compliance is permitted but 

optional. NHTSA proposes to make 

compliance with all other requirements 

in this proposed rule be required as of 

the effective date of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Internet: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Facsimile: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, please include the docket 

number of this document. 

You may also call the Docket at (202) 

366–9322. 

Note that all comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act discussion below. 

Privacy Act: Except as provided 

below, all comments received into the 

docket will be made public in their 

entirety. The comments will be 

searchable by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You should not include 

information in your comment that you 

do not want to be made public. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or at https://

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact 

Alexander Ansley, Chief, Recall 

Management Division, at (202) 493– 

0481. For legal issues, you may contact 

Stephen Hench, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, at (202) 366–5263. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background and Summary of Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Notification Requirements Before and 

After MAP–21 and the FAST Act 

B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA’s 

Responses 

A. NHTSA’s Authority and Scope of the 

Rule 

B. Electronic Notification Requirements 

1. Means of Required Electronic 

Notification 

2. Content of Required Electronic 

Notification 

3. Additional and Follow-Up Notification 

Requirements 

C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles Built 

Prior to the Compliance Date, and Lead 

Time 

IV. Proposed Changes To Recall Notification 

Requirements 

V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part 577 

A. Language in Recall Notifications 

B. Updated Office and Website 

Designations 

C. Language Regarding FMVSS 

Noncompliances 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, 

14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

I. Executive Order 13211 

J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

K. Privacy Act 

L. Plain Language 

I. Executive Summary 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP–21) authorized 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) to amend the 

means by which a manufacturer of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment provides recall notification 

to owners, purchasers, and dealers that 

a vehicle or equipment contains a defect 

related to motor vehicle safety or does 

not comply with an applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard 

(FMVSS).1 MAP–21 also authorized 

NHTSA to order additional follow-up 

recall notifications if a second 

notification does not result in an 

adequate number of motor vehicles or 

equipment being returned for remedy.2

Congress later enacted the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act, which mandated NHTSA 

amend 49 CFR part 577 to require the 

issuance of recall notifications to 

owners and purchasers by electronic 

means, in addition to first-class mail.3

On January 25, 2016, NHTSA issued 

an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting 

comments and supporting information 

about how the agency may update the 

means manufacturers must utilize to 

effectively notify owners and purchasers 

of a recall (whether as a first notification 

or as a follow-up notification).4 On 

September 2, 2016, after consideration 

of comments received in response to the 

ANPRM, NHTSA issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

proposing to amend 49 CFR part 577 to 

require that manufacturers issue recall 

notifications to affected owners, 

purchasers, and lessees by electronic 

means in addition to first-class mail, as 

well as require that follow-up recall 

notifications be issued by electronic 

means, in addition to first-class mail.5

For simplicity in the preamble of this 

proposed rule, ‘‘owners’’ includes 

lessees. 

After further consideration, including 

a review of the comments received in 

response to the NPRM and based on 

additional learnings—including 

knowledge acquired through the 

ongoing oversight of the Takata recalls, 

where manufacturers commonly use 

electronic forms of recall notification— 

NHTSA is issuing this supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(SNPRM). NHTSA believes that this 

supplemental proposal will better 

ensure electronic recall notifications 

reach and provide effective notice to 

owners and purchasers. Effective recall 

notifications are critical to ensuring that 

as many vehicles and items of 

equipment as possible are remedied, 

addressing the safety risk of a defect or 

noncompliance.6 In this SNPRM, 

NHTSA again proposes to amend 49 

CFR part 577 to require that 

manufacturers issue recall notifications 

to affected owners and purchasers by 

electronic means in addition to firstclass mail. This multi-channel, multitouch approach helps to effectively 

communicate a recall and motivate 

completion.7 The increasing use of 

electronic recall communications and 

the agency’s greater understanding of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1911 

8 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)–(B) (as effective to 

September 30, 2012). 

9 Id. Replacement equipment includes, e.g., 

motorcycle helmets and child restraint systems. See 

49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) (providing that for 

purposes of, inter alia, 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121, 

‘‘replacement equipment’’ is motor vehicle 

equipment that is not original equipment); id. sec. 

30102(b)(1)(C) (defining original equipment as that 

which is installed on a motor vehicle at the time 

of delivery to the first purchaser); see also 49 CFR 

573.4 (similar definitions). 

10 Id. at 30119(d)(4). 

11NHTSA is delegated authority by the Secretary 

of Transportation to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 

49 of the United States Code. 49 CFR 501.2. 

12Notification to dealers and distributors is 

generally required to be sent ‘‘by certified mail, 

verifiable or electronic means such as receipts or 

logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution 

system, or other more expeditious and verifiable 

means.’’ 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and 

distributors are not notified by first-class mail. 

Therefore, the FAST Act did not require the agency 

to change the means of notification for dealers and 

distributors, and NHTSA is not doing so here. 

13NHTSA issued an ANRPM on January 25, 2016. 

That ANRPM is summarized in the NPRM. 81 FR 

4007 (ANPRM); 81 FR 60332 (NPRM). 

potential data sources supporting such 

communications over the last several 

years has informed this supplemental 

proposal. 

After further consideration, NHTSA 

believes certain meaningful changes to 

its prior proposal are warranted and 

invites comment on such changes. One 

of the primary revisions from the NPRM 

is what is now a two-tiered approach to 

issuing electronic recall notification. 

This approach first requires all 

reasonable efforts to send electronic 

notification through contact information 

specific to each owner and purchaser. 

Then, if electronic notification cannot 

be sent in that manner, the electronic 

notification must be issued by other 

electronic means reasonably calculated 

to reach the owners and purchasers who 

could not be reached through individual 

contact information. The main purpose 

of this approach is to promote the use 

of notifications that are most likely to 

reach and persuade owners and 

purchasers. Such notifications are, in 

the agency’s experience—including 

from working with over a dozen vehicle 

manufacturers issuing numerous 

communications to owners in the 

Takata recalls—direct communications 

to the specific consumer. 

Other revisions from the NPRM 

include increased flexibility with 

respect to the content of the electronic 

notification, and an added requirement 

that manufacturers submit to the agency 

electronic notification plans that 

describe anticipated approaches to 

electronic recall notification. 

NHTSA is also proposing several 

revisions to 49 CFR part 577 that are not 

specific to recall notification by 

electronic means. One proposed 

revision is to the language required on 

the outside of each envelope containing 

an owner notification letter under 49 

CFR 577.5(a) and at the top of the owner 

notification letter under 49 CFR 

577.5(b), which NHTSA is proposing to 

change from ‘‘SAFETY RECALL 

NOTICE’’ and ‘‘IMPORTANT SAFETY 

RECALL’’ (respectively) to ‘‘URGENT 

SAFETY RECALL’’ in both locations. A 

second proposed revision is to language 

in 49 CFR 577.5 that currently refers to 

a ‘‘failure to conform’’ and products that 

‘‘fail to conform’’ to an applicable 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 

The proposed revisions read instead 

‘‘does not comply with,’’ which is more 

in alignment with the statutory language 

and ordinary usage in this context. 

NHTSA is also proposing to update the 

website to which owners are to be 

directed for recall notifications— 

changing ‘‘http://www.safercar.gov’’ to 

‘‘http://www.nhtsa.gov’’—and two 

revisions to update the office 

designation for NHTSA’s Recall 

Management Division (changing ‘‘NVS– 

215’’ to ‘‘NEF–107’’). 

The agency invites public comment 

on its additional proposed revisions to 

part 577. 

II. Background and Summary of Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Notification Requirements Before and 

After MAP–21 and the FAST Act 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), 

49 U.S.C. 30118(c), requires that, in the 

event of a safety defect or 

noncompliance with an applicable 

FMVSS in a motor vehicle or 

replacement equipment, manufacturers 

must notify owners, purchasers, and 

dealers of the vehicle or equipment 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. 49 U.S.C. 

30119(d) governs how this notice is 

given. Prior to MAP–21, for recalls of 

vehicles, Section 30119(d) required 

notice to be sent by first-class mail to 

the registered owner or, if the registered 

owner could not be identified, to the 

most recent purchaser known to the 

manufacturer.8 For recalls of 

replacement equipment, the statute 

required notification by first-class mail 

to the most recent purchaser.9

Manufacturers were also required to 

notify dealers under the statute ‘‘by 

certified mail or quicker means if 

available.’’ 10

In 2012, Section 31310 of MAP–21 

amended the notice provisions in 49 

U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary, 

and by delegation NHTSA’s 

Administrator,11 the flexibility to 

determine the manner by which 

notifications of recalls under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 must be sent. The amended 

statutory language permitted the agency 

to engage in a rulemaking to require 

notification by means other than (or in 

addition to) first-class mail to owners 

and purchasers of vehicles or equipment 

subject to safety recalls. In 2015, the 

FAST Act expounded on this authority 

by specifically mandating the agency 

amend 49 CFR 577.7 to include the 

issuance of recall notifications by 

electronic means in addition to 

notification by first-class mail.12

While 49 U.S.C. 30119 previously 

authorized the Secretary to order a 

second recall notification if the 

Secretary determined that the first 

notification failed to result in an 

adequate number of motor vehicles or 

items of equipment being returned for 

remedy, the statute was silent as to 

notifications beyond this second 

notification. Section 31310 of MAP–21 

clarified this issue by amending 49 

U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49 

U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the 

Secretary to order additional 

notifications if the Secretary determines 

that a second notification also failed to 

result in an adequate number of motor 

vehicles or items of equipment being 

returned for remedy. 

B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

In the NPRM issued in September 

2016, NHTSA proposed amending 49 

CFR 577.7 to require that manufacturers 

issue recall notifications by electronic 

means, in addition to first-class mail, 

each time a recall notification is 

required.13 The agency proposed that 

‘‘electronic means’’ include ‘‘electronic 

mail, text messages, radio, or television 

notifications, vehicle infotainment 

console messages, over-the-air alerts, 

social media or targeted online 

campaigns, phone calls, including 

automated phone calls, or other real 

time means.’’ The proposal would have 

permitted, without further direction, 

manufacturer discretion to select the 

electronic means. NHTSA also proposed 

retaining agency discretion to require 

manufacturers to issue additional recall 

notifications by other electronic means 

if a manufacturer’s chosen means was 

impractical, did not feasibly reach all of 

the impacted purchasers or owners, or 

the agency otherwise deemed the means 

inappropriate. 

NHTSA further proposed to require 

that: electronic recall notifications 

comply with the content requirements 

in 49 CFR part 577; electronic recall 

notifications provide a hyperlink to a 

notice that complies with those 

requirements, or the manufacturer 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1912 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

14Under 49 CFR 573.15, ‘‘[m]anufacturers that 

have manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 

introduced or delivered for introduction in 

interstate commerce, or imported into the United 

States 25,000 or more light vehicles, or 5,000 or 

more motorcycles in the current calendar year or 

prior calendar year’’ are required to support 

NHTSA’s VIN search tool and offer VIN-based 

safety recall search tools on its website pursuant to 

existing regulation. NHTSA’s VIN search tool is 

available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls. 15Public Law 114–94, 24104(a)(1) (2015). 

16TIA also submitted extensive comment on its 

support for a TIN to VIN system. While NHTSA 

recognizes there may be benefits to such a system 

that, among other things, may make electronic 

recall notification ‘‘easier,’’ the potential creation of 

such a system is beyond the scope of this proposed 

rule. 

provide a representative copy of such a 

notice along with instructions on how 

an owner can determine whether a 

vehicle or an item of equipment is 

impacted; and the electronic recall 

notification direct recipients to 

NHTSA’s VIN search tool and the 

manufacturer’s search tool.14 NHTSA 

also proposed amending 49 CFR 577.10, 

consistent with the above, to clarify that 

where NHTSA requires follow-up recall 

notifications, those notifications must 

be issued by electronic means, in 

addition to first-class mail. 

NHTSA invited comment on these 

and any alternative proposals that 

would allow manufacturers numerous 

options for issuing electronic recall 

notification while ensuring the 

communication of the traditional 

components of part 577 first-class 

mailings. NHTSA specifically requested 

comment on its proposals to: permit 

manufacturer discretion as to the means 

chosen to issue electronic notifications; 

the agency’s proposed definition of 

‘‘electronic means’’ and whether further 

definition of the term ‘‘social media or 

targeted online campaigns’’ was needed; 

the agency’s proposal to require 

manufacturers required to support 

NHTSA’s VIN search tool and offer VINbased safety recall search tools on their 

websites to include in their electronic 

notifications directions to those tools; 

and the agency’s clarification that 

follow-up notifications must be issued 

by, in addition to first-class mail, 

electronic means consistent with the 

rule. 

III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA’s 

Responses 

NHTSA received comments from 

fourteen commenters on its NPRM: Jeff 

Burton (commenting as an individual); 

School Bus Manufacturers Technical 

Council (SBMTC); SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 

(SafetyBeltSafe); Harley-Davidson Motor 

Company (Harley-Davidson); National 

School Transportation Association 

(NSTA); Cummins, Inc. (Cummins); 

Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety 

(Advocates); IHS Automotive (IHS); Tire 

Industry Association (TIA); Rubber 

Manufacturers Association (RMA); 

Truck and Engine Manufacturers 

Association (EMA); National 

Automobile Dealers Association 

(NADA); and Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers, Inc. and Association of 

Global Automakers, Inc., which 

submitted joint comments (Alliance and 

Global). All comments were reviewed 

and considered, and to the extent 

relevant to this supplemental proposal 

are discussed in this section by subject 

matter. 

A. NHTSA’s Authority and Scope of the 

Rule 

Alliance and Global commented that 

Congress only intended the FAST Act to 

authorize the issuance of recall 

notifications using electronic means in 

certain recalls—not to require the use of 

electronic means for all recalls. Several 

commenters also expressed concern that 

the rule might conflict with certain 

Federal laws such as the Controlling the 

Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography 

and Marketing Act (CAN–SPAM Act), 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call 

Implementation Act. NADA and 

Alliance and Global requested that 

NHTSA obtain acknowledgement from 

the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) that notifications 

issued under the rule would be 

permitted under those laws. 

NHTSA disagrees with the 

interpretation from Alliance and Global. 

The FAST Act specifically provides that 

‘‘the Secretary shall prescribe a final 

rule revising the regulations under [49 

CFR 577.7] to include notification by 

electronic means in addition to 

notification by first-class mail.’’ 15 This 

language mandates a change so that 

electronic notifications are included in 

the regulation with the same force as 

first-class mail notifications and to 

apply to all recalls, as first-class mail 

notification currently does. 

As to the concerns pertaining to 

potential conflict with Federal laws, 

NHTSA reiterates that this rule is legally 

mandated, and based on the agency’s 

analysis and judgment, NHTSA has 

determined that this supplemental 

proposed rule will not conflict with 

these laws; recall notifications are 

safety-related informational messages. 

For many years manufacturers have 

been using electronic means of recall 

notification as a supplement to their 

required mailed notices, and NHTSA is 

unaware of the FCC or FTC taking any 

adverse action against entities issuing 

such electronic notifications. Indeed, 

IHS commented that manufacturers are 

already providing notifications via 

channels other than first-class mail, and 

Alliance and Global acknowledged in 

their comments that in recent recalls 

many of its members have used various 

electronic means of recall notification. 

B. Electronic Notification Requirements 

As a general matter, comments were 

supportive of the proposed rule, 

particularly for its potential to increase 

the reach of recall notifications and the 

flexibility it would afford manufacturers 

by allowing them to choose the 

electronic means best suited to a recall. 

Many critical comments centered on the 

specific means of electronic notification 

proposed, and the specific content 

proposed for those notifications. 

Comments were also fairly extensive on 

additional and follow-up notifications 

under the proposal. 

1. Means of Required Electronic 

Notification 

Comments on this topic included 

IHS’s request that the regulations be 

drafted broadly ‘‘so as not to limit the 

means of providing notice which may 

not be contemplated today.’’ Advocates 

commented that NHTSA should require 

manufacturers to issue electronic 

notifications both directly to individuals 

(e.g., through email), as well as issue 

more general notifications (e.g., through 

social-media campaigns), while Alliance 

and Global commented that they do not 

believe that every recall should require 

both first-class mail and electronic 

notification. RMA observed that tire 

manufacturers do not receive electronic 

contact information from tire purchasers 

as part of the tire registration process, 

and so it ‘‘strongly supports the 

flexibility’’ for manufacturers to choose 

the electronic means they use to provide 

notification under the proposed rule. 

TIA expressed concern with collecting 

email addresses at the point of sale, and 

requested NHTSA study and consider 

establishing a third-party data 

depository.16 Harley-Davidson, agreeing 

with the flexibility of the rule, suggested 

adding language to clarify that multiple, 

different means of electronic 

notification may be used in a single 

recall to reach owners and purchasers. 

Alliance and Global requested 

clarification of the meaning of ‘‘other 

media,’’ as included in the proposal, 

given that the proposed rule would 

require electronic recall 

communication. Cummins requested the 

final rule allow multiple manufacturers 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1913 

17For example, Manufacturers A and B could 

agree that Manufacturer A will issue email 

notifications on behalf of both manufacturers, and 

Manufacturer B will issue a radio campaign and 

first-class mail notifications on behalf of both 

manufacturers—thereby satisfying, through 

electronic mail, radio, and first-class mail, both 

Manufacturer A’s and B’s obligations under the 

rule. 

18Such a framework—allowing for a combination 

of multiple electronic means as needed to notify 

consumers—should also address TIA’s concern 

about collecting one specific type of contact 

information (email addresses) at the point of sale. 

19While NHTSA acknowledges Cummins’s 

concern that certain contact information may be 

limited for some manufacturers, the agency believes 

that with the numerous electronic means 

available—including but not limited to those 

referenced in the rule—even in such circumstances 

manufacturers will be able to independently satisfy 

their obligations. 

20Although perhaps some affected owners and 

purchasers will be unmotivated to participate 

regardless of the nature and number of notifications 

they receive, based on the agency’s experience, 

analysis, and judgment, the increased 

dissemination of recall information far outweighs 

this potential shortcoming. See generally 82 FR 

60789, 60793–94 (Dec. 22, 2017) (explaining, in 

discussion about the Takata air bag inflator recalls, 

how available information supports notion that 

frequent outreach via multiple communications 

methods is effective). 

involved in the same recall to issue 

electronic recall notifications on behalf 

of one another to collectively satisfy 

their obligations.17

As explained further below, NHTSA 

is proposing to require that 

manufacturers issue both electronic and 

first-class mail recall notifications for 

every recall, but is modifying the rule 

previously proposed in the NPRM with 

a two-tiered approach to targeting 

recipients of the notification. 

Specifically, the proposed rule would 

require that manufacturers use all 

reasonable efforts to issue electronic 

recall notifications through contact 

information specific to each individual 

owner and purchaser. If not every 

affected owner and purchaser can be 

reached through such notification (e.g., 

because relevant contact information is 

unavailable), then manufacturers must 

issue additional electronic notification 

reasonably calculated to reach those 

who are unreachable through contact 

information specific to them (i.e., more 

general forms of notification, such as 

radio or social media campaigns). 

NHTSA believes this approach best 

promotes the use of electronic 

notifications that are most likely to 

reach affected owners and purchasers 

and improve recall participation, while 

at the same time mitigates costs to 

manufacturers where all individual 

owners and purchasers can otherwise be 

notified directly through electronic 

means. 

Accordingly, under the proposed rule, 

manufacturers may, and likely often 

will, issue electronic notifications by 

multiple means to address a single 

recall and are not required to use one 

specific means. NHTSA intends the 

proposed rule to allow for multiple 

electronic means and recognizes HarleyDavidson’s comment to add clearer 

language to this effect, although the 

agency believes that the relevant 

provision’s definition that ‘‘include[s] 

notification by any of the following’’ 

electronic means is sufficient.18 NHTSA 

also believes it has sufficiently afforded 

manufacturers the flexibility to choose 

the electronic means by which they 

issue recall notifications in the 

proposed rule—including means, as IHS 

commented, that ‘‘may not be 

contemplated today’’—by providing an 

extensive but non-exhaustive list of 

potential electronic means of 

notification in the proposed rule. In the 

same vein, the proposed rule does not 

attempt to further define, nor in any 

particular way limit, ‘‘social media or 

targeted online campaigns,’’ which 

should alleviate concern that further 

definition of that term could ‘‘constrain 

innovation in the recall communication 

space.’’ 

In further alignment with the 

proposed rule’s flexibility, NHTSA 

declines to limit ‘‘traditional broadcast 

methods such as print media, radio and 

television’’ to only ‘‘rare . . . 

significant, large-scale recall[s],’’ as 

RMA requested in its comments. 

NHTSA emphasizes that manufacturers 

must evaluate the circumstances of any 

particular recall on a case-by-case basis 

and does not wish to prospectively 

limit—or, conversely, direct—the 

potential use of certain electronic means 

of notification. As explained above, to 

improve recall participation while at the 

same time mitigate costs to 

manufacturers, the proposed rule 

requires all reasonable efforts to issue 

electronic notification using contact 

information specific to individual 

owners and purchasers, and where such 

notification is not feasible, additional 

means of notification (such as, perhaps, 

some of the ‘‘traditional broadcast 

methods’’ RMA references) are required. 

NHTSA also declines in this proposed 

rule to allow, as suggested by Cummins, 

multiple manufacturers involved in the 

same recall to issue electronic recall 

notifications on behalf of one another to 

collectively satisfy their electronicnotification obligations. NHTSA 

certainly encourages manufacturers to 

share recall-related knowledge, 

information, and best practices with one 

another. However, NHTSA believes that 

requiring each manufacturer to 

independently satisfy the notification 

requirements in the proposed rule is 

preferable to a ‘‘divide-and-conquer’’ 

approach—even where a manufacturer’s 

notifications may overlap with those of 

another involved manufacturer.19

NHTSA encourages coordination among 

manufacturers to effectively address 

recalls, although NHTSA believes that 

the overall effectiveness of the rule is 

best advanced by each manufacturer 

meeting the requirements on an 

individual basis. 

Indeed, a greater number of recall 

notifications issued through a greater 

variety of means should generally 

increase recall participation and the 

likelihood that notification will 

ultimately reach all affected owners and 

purchasers.20 If manufacturers were 

permitted to satisfy their obligations 

through other manufacturers’ 

notifications, recalls would involve 

fewer notifications issued through fewer 

means—which could have the opposite 

effect. Furthermore, manufacturers 

recurrently involved with one another 

in the same recalls could, over time, 

become dependent on each other to 

issue notifications by certain electronic 

means, which could negatively impact 

the efficacy and development of 

electronic notifications in future recalls. 

Specifically, allowing manufacturers to 

issue electronic notifications on behalf 

of one another could discourage 

manufacturers to, as each recall arises, 

independently revisit and evaluate their 

own universe of available electronic 

means (and the effectiveness thereof). 

Without the onus on each manufacturer 

to reach its affected owners and 

purchasers, manufacturers are unlikely 

to improve their approaches to 

electronic recall notification, e.g., 

through the gathering of additional 

electronic contact information, or 

exploring additional means that may be 

more effective. Such improvements may 

be critical to reaching affected owners 

and purchasers in recalls that do not 

involve multiple manufacturers 

accustomed to issuing notifications on 

one other’s behalf. 

It should be reiterated from the NPRM 

that this supplemental proposed rule 

neither amends, nor alters, a 

manufacturer’s obligations under 49 

CFR part 573. Manufacturers must 

continue to comply with 49 CFR 573.6 

by filing representative copies of ‘‘all 

notices, bulletins, and other 

communications that relate directly to 

the defect or noncompliance and are 

sent to more than one manufacturer, 

distributor, dealer, or purchaser.’’ 

Electronic notifications are notices, 

bulletins, or other communications 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1914 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

21Manufacturers must issue a recall notification 

no later than 60 days from the date they file a defect 

or noncompliance information report, and where a 

remedy is unavailable at the time of that 

notification, manufacturers must also issue a 

second notification within a reasonable time (and 

in accordance with part 577) once a remedy 

becomes available. 49 CFR 577.7(a)(1). 

22The current regulation provides, in part, that 

‘‘[t]he scope, timing, form, and content of such 

follow-up notification will be established by the 

Administrator, in consultation with the 

manufacturer.’’ 49 CFR 577.10(a). 

23Note the proposed approach still requires 

adherence to 49 CFR 577.8 (generally prohibiting 

the inclusion of disclaimers). 

24See generally Tips for Increasing Recall 

Completion Rates, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recallcompletion-rates (last visited Nov. 8, 2024) (noting 

multi-channel outreach, including forms of 

electronic communication); The Independent 

Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated Remedy 

Program, Update on the State of the Takata Airbag 

Recalls (Jan. 23, 2020) at 8, available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/ 

update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls012320-tag.pdf (observing escalation of outreach 

communications, both in frequency and in type, 

‘‘has proven successful to engage previously 

unresponsive affected vehicle owners’’). 

under 49 CFR 573.6. Currently, 

manufacturers provide representative 

copies to NHTSA via the online Recalls 

Portal. Under this proposed rule, 

manufacturers will continue to do so for 

required electronic notification, as the 

online Recalls Portal will be updated to 

allow for manufacturers to select an 

applicable electronic means of 

notification. Representative copies of 

notification are required even if a 

manufacturer chooses to issue notices 

via electronic means such as radio or 

television notifications, vehicle 

infotainment console message, over-theair alerts, telephone calls, or other 

means. Recognizing the potentially large 

file sizes of some such notifications, 

however (e.g., videos), NHTSA 

encourages manufacturers to submit 

representative copies of electronic 

notifications to the online Recalls Portal 

in a file format or manner with minimal 

storage requirements. Manufacturers 

may submit, for example, hyperlinks to 

the notification, screenshots of messages 

or alerts, or scripts of calls or other radio 

messages. 

This supplemental proposed rule 

requires recall notification by both 

electronic means and first-class mail for 

every recall, but not necessarily for 

every instance of notification for that 

recall. In short, a manufacturer must 

provide electronic notification for both 

the initial ‘‘interim’’ (if necessary, where 

a remedy is unavailable at the time of 

notification) and ‘‘final’’ recall 

notifications.21 As described above, the 

agency believes this requirement will 

increase the likelihood that notification 

will ultimately reach all affected owners 

and purchasers and increase recall 

participation. However, while the 

Administrator may require follow-up 

notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, this 

proposed rule does not require those 

notifications always be by both firstclass mail and electronic means.22 To 

clarify, NHTSA is proposing to add 

language relating to electronic means of 

notification to 49 CFR 577.10(g) to 

ensure that follow-up electronic 

notifications issued under that section 

conform to the requirements for 

electronic notifications that are in this 

supplemental proposed rule. NHTSA 

also confirms that this supplemental 

proposed rule requiring notification by 

electronic means does not apply to 

voluntary follow-up recall notifications, 

although the agency encourages 

manufacturers to issue notifications by 

the means most likely to reach and 

motivate affected owners and 

purchasers. In addition, to address the 

request from Alliance and Global to 

clarify the meaning of ‘‘other media’’ 

under 49 CFR 577.10(g), that term may 

include, for example, various forms of 

print media other than first-class mail. 

2. Content of Required Electronic 

Notification 

As to the content required in 

notifications, IHS observed that the 

proposed rule would require that 

electronic recall notifications contain, in 

addition to any applicable references to 

VIN search tools, all the content that 

must be included in first-class mail 

notifications under 49 CFR 577.5. 

Alliance and Global and IHS questioned 

the value of such content because if the 

first-class mail notification did not 

result in recall completion, electronic 

notification containing the same 

language would be unlikely to yield a 

different result. Alliance and Global, 

while not ‘‘objecting’’ to the notion, 

suggested that there could be value in 

not requiring manufacturers to direct 

viewers to VIN search tools in broad 

electronic notification—and instead 

allowing manufacturers more flexibility 

in determining the content of such 

notifications. IHS further hypothesized 

a potential unintended consequence of 

the rule’s content requirement: limiting 

the electronic means used because the 

extent of the required content may 

render some electronic notifications 

‘‘unintelligible.’’ Toyota observed that 

requiring all the text in 577 would be 

difficult for in-vehicle recall messages, 

because owners would need to scroll to 

view the entire message and may be 

dissuaded from reading them. Toyota 

noted it would be more effective if 

messages in this format were ‘‘short and 

to the point.’’ 

The NPRM did allow for providing, in 

lieu of the content of the first-class mail 

notice on the face of the electronic 

notification, an internet hyperlink to 

that content (or a representative copy of 

a notice with that content). However, 

this supplemental proposed rule is more 

flexible, requiring that the content in 

electronic notification must not be 

‘‘inconsistent’’ with 49 U.S.C. 30119 (as 

opposed to requiring compliance with 

49 CFR 577.7),23 and requiring an 

internet hyperlink to a representative 

copy of the first-class mail notice only 

‘‘where practical and can be included in 

a manner consistent with the purpose of 

[49 CFR part 577].’’ Such an approach 

should alleviate concerns about the 

redundancy and/or unintelligibility of 

electronic notifications. However, 

consistent with its recent experience 

and learnings in the recall space, 

NHTSA also believes that, in some 

cases, language from a first-class mail 

notice might have a different effect on 

an owner or purchaser when the means 

of delivery is electronic—even if the 

first-class mail notice did not motivate 

the owner or purchaser to obtain a 

remedy.24

As to Alliance and Global’s comments 

questioning the value of directing 

recipients to VIN search tools, NHTSA 

considers such information vital to 

improving recall participation. 

Moreover, this content requirement is 

minimally burdensome and does not, in 

the agency’s view, substantially hinder 

a manufacturer’s ability to, as Alliance 

and Global state, ‘‘design electronic 

notifications that might appeal to hardto-reach populations.’’ The requirement 

also provides substantive consistency 

between the first-class mail notice and 

the electronic notice such that owners 

are more likely to associate the notices 

with one another, thereby reinforcing 

their authority and credibility. NHTSA 

is, however, revising its proposal to only 

require that owners be directed to either 

NHTSA’s or the manufacturer’s VIN 

search tool (not both). 

3. Additional and Follow-Up 

Notification Requirements 

Alliance and Global requested that 

NHTSA justify why manufacturers must 

issue every recall notification (including 

follow-up notifications) by both 

electronic means and first-class mail. 

Alliance and Global also requested 

confirmation that the proposed rule’s 

electronic-notification requirement 

would apply only to notifications issued 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1915 

25As to EMA’s more specific concern that 

NHTSA may require a manufacturer to use an 

ineffective or impracticable method of notification, 

NHTSA has no intention of requiring any action 

that fails to further the objectives of the Safety Act. 

26See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 

feasible, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ 

dictionary/feasible (last visited Nov. 8, 2024). 27This flexibility may be particularly beneficial 

when a recall involves vehicles not owned by 

individuals, but entities—as SBMTC recognized 

with respect to its school buses, which are owned 

by fleet agencies, school districts, and counties. 

28See 49 CFR 577.10(a). 

29This supplemental proposed rule would merely 

confirm that the Administrator also has the option 

Continued 

pursuant to regulations—i.e., not to 

voluntary follow-up notifications. As 

explained above, while the 

Administrator may require follow-up 

notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, this 

proposed rule does not require those 

notifications always be by both firstclass mail and electronic means, and 

this was not NHTSA’s intent in the 

NPRM. Follow-up electronic 

notifications that are issued under that 

section would need to conform to the 

requirements for electronic notifications 

that are in this supplemental proposed 

rule. Notification by electronic means is 

also not required for voluntary followup recall notifications, although the 

agency encourages manufacturers to 

issue notifications by the means most 

likely to reach and motivate affected 

owners and purchasers. 

EMA, Alliance and Global, and 

Harley-Davidson also commented on 

NHTSA’s discretion to require 

manufacturers to issue additional 

notification by other electronic means 

where NHTSA deems that a 

manufacturer’s chosen electronic means 

is impractical, does not feasibly reach 

all of the purchasers or owners 

impacted, or is otherwise inappropriate. 

Specifically, Harley-Davidson requested 

clarification of what constitutes 

‘‘impractical’’ and ‘‘inappropriate’’ 

electronic means of notification, as well 

as clarification of what factors would 

inform NHTSA whether to require a 

manufacturer to issue additional 

notification by other electronic means. 

Harley-Davidson suggested that NHTSA 

at a minimum consider the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the recall, 

including safety risk, scope, and recall 

completion at the time of the 

determination. EMA and Alliance and 

Global expressed more foundational 

concerns about NHTSA’s discretion. 

Alliance and Global asserted that 

NHTSA’s discretion would be 

unfettered, and that NHTSA would be 

able to exercise its discretion on every 

recall because it is impossible to 

identify an electronic communication 

that will feasibly reach every affected 

owner and purchaser. EMA suggested 

that NHTSA might even require a 

manufacturer to use a method of 

notification that is ineffective or 

impracticable. 

To address such concerns, EMA and 

Alliance and Global requested 

regulatory provisions, including ‘‘safe 

harbors,’’ to give deference to a 

manufacturer’s chosen means of 

electronic notification. Specifically, 

EMA requested the rule require that 

NHTSA consult with manufacturers 

before the issuance of additional 

notification by electronic means, and 

further suggested a safe harbor for the 

follow-up provisions of 49 CFR 577.10 

to provide that NHTSA will not 

ordinarily order a manufacturer to issue 

additional notifications via an electronic 

means different from that which the 

manufacturer has chosen. Alliance and 

Global also requested a safe harbor for 

the issuance of additional notification 

by electronic means: a presumption that 

NHTSA will not ordinarily order a 

different means of electronic 

notification after it approves the form of 

notification selected and identified by 

the manufacturer in a report under 49 

CFR part 573. 

NHTSA again is proposing to retain 

agency discretion to require 

manufacturers to issue additional recall 

notifications by other electronic means 

if a manufacturer’s chosen means is 

impractical, does not feasibly reach all 

of the impacted purchasers or owners, 

or the agency otherwise deems the 

means inappropriate. NHTSA intends to 

consider all relevant facts and 

circumstances of each recall when 

determining whether to require 

additional notification by electronic 

means, including but not limited to the 

factors Harley-Davidson listed in its 

comments. Some additional factors 

NHTSA may consider are reflected in 49 

CFR 577.10(b) (listing factors relevant to 

whether to require follow-up 

notifications). 

As a general response to EMA’s and 

Alliance and Global’s comments 

expressing concern about NHTSA’s 

discretion to require additional 

notification by electronic means, the 

agency reiterates that Congress 

mandated NHTSA implement a rule 

requiring manufacturers issue recall 

notification by electronic means, and 

the provisions of the FAST Act reflect 

an interest in improving recall 

notification and completion. NHTSA is 

fulfilling this mandate pursuant to its 

statutory and regulatory authority 

through the framework set out in this 

proposed rule which, including the 

provisions retaining agency discretion, 

is consistent with the purpose and 

objectives of the Safety Act and 

Congress’s intent.25

Alliance and Global expressed 

particular concern that NHTSA could 

exercise such discretion in every recall 

because it is impossible to identify an 

electronic communication that will 

feasibly reach all affected owners and 

purchasers. ‘‘Feasible’’ means, in most 

relevant part, ‘‘capable of being done or 

carried out,’’ or ‘‘reasonable, likely.’’ 26

And NHTSA believes that for every 

recall there will exist a notification by 

electronic means, or a combination of 

such means, that is reasonably likely to 

reach each affected owner and 

purchaser. Notably, in their comments 

Alliance and Global cite only to 

relatively individualized electronic 

means of notification—stating they are 

‘‘unaware of any email list, text message 

directory, or social media outlet that 

will reach all affected owners’’ 

(emphasis removed). There are many 

other, broader electronic means 

available that do not require such 

information. The proposed rule 

contemplates the very concern Alliance 

and Global express here, and prescribes 

(in fact, requires) a solution: additional 

notification by general electronic means 

reasonably calculated to reach other 

affected owners and purchasers. 

Adopting EMA’s proposal to require 

that NHTSA consult with a 

manufacturer before requiring 

additional notification by electronic 

means risks undermining a significant 

cornerstone of the rule: flexibility 

afforded to manufacturers to choose the 

means of electronic notification. Part of 

the appeal of such flexibility is that 

manufacturers are often well-positioned 

to gauge the likely effectiveness of 

various electronic means of notification 

for any particular recall.27 In accord 

with this approach, NHTSA anticipates 

exercising discretion to require 

additional notifications by electronic 

means in relatively limited situations, as 

it does today for first-class mail 

notifications. 

Consultation with NHTSA may 

become necessary, however, where a 

manufacturer’s chosen means has not 

produced results—i.e., an adequate 

number of vehicles returned to 

remedy.28 At that juncture NHTSA finds 

it appropriate and in alignment with the 

flexibility of the proposed rule that the 

agency consult with the manufacturer to 

develop an approach to improve the 

effectiveness of its recall notifications. 

This framework is already reflected in 

the regulations, and NHTSA finds no 

reason to add additional language to this 

effect in 49 CFR 577.10, as EMA appears 

to request.29 Similarly, as NHTSA 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1916 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

to require follow-up notification by electronic 

means (in addition to the option to require firstclass mail and/or other media). 

believes this existing framework best 

carries out Congress’s mandate and 

balances, among other things, flexibility, 

oversight, and accountability, the 

agency also finds no reason to adopt an 

explicit safe harbor or presumption to 

defer to a manufacturer’s chosen means 

of electronic notification. 

This supplemental proposed rule, 

however, includes a requirement not 

included in the NPRM: that 

manufacturers submit, by the effective 

date of this rule, an ‘‘electronic recall 

notification plan.’’ At a minimum, this 

plan must describe the means of 

electronic notification that the 

manufacturer anticipates using for its 

recalls (based on, e.g., the typical 

contact information available for owners 

and purchasers) and describe how the 

manufacturer expects to approach the 

selection of electronic means for a recall 

(e.g., noting any preferences for certain 

means, and why). A manufacturer’s 

electronic recall notification must be 

consistent with its plans unless the 

manufacturer notifies NHTSA ten days 

before the issuance of electronic 

notifications that the notification will be 

inconsistent with the plan. Such 

electronic recall notification plans must 

be submitted to the agency every five 

years, although a revised plan may be 

submitted at any time to account for 

changes in approaches to electronic 

recall notification. NHTSA believes this 

requirement adequately apprises the 

agency of each manufacturer’s general 

approach to electronic recall 

notification, while preserving 

manufacturers’ flexibility to select 

electronic means best suited for each 

recall. 

Currently, 49 CFR 573.15 requires 

manufacturers of a certain number of 

light vehicles or motorcycles in the 

current or prior calendar year to support 

NHTSA’s VIN search tool and offer VINbased safety recall search tools on their 

websites. NHTSA requests public 

comment on whether to implement a 

similar threshold for this requirement to 

submit an electronic recall notification 

plan to NHTSA. 

C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles 

Built Before the Compliance Date, and 

Lead Time 

NHTSA proposes to make the 

electronic notification requirements 

applicable to recalls filed one year or 

later following publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register, with early 

compliance permitted but optional. 

NHTSA proposes to make compliance 

with all other requirements in this 

proposed rule be required on the 

effective date of the final rule. 

EMA commented that the final rule 

should not apply to recalled vehicles 

built before the compliance date of the 

rule. EMA requested this approach 

because information to achieve the 

likely most effective electronic means of 

notification for heavy-duty vehicles— 

email, telephone, and/or text—will not 

in all cases be known to the 

manufacturer until after the compliance 

date of the final rule. Cummins 

similarly requested, without additional 

comment, that the final rule not apply 

to vehicles manufactured prior to the 

compliance date. 

NHTSA declines to limit the proposed 

rule’s applicability to only vehicles built 

after the compliance date of the rule. 

NHTSA recognizes that for some recalls, 

individualized notification by electronic 

means such as those EMA references in 

its comments will be unavailable for 

some affected owners and/or purchasers 

because of the unavailability of the 

owners’ or purchasers’ electronic 

contact information. However, this does 

not preclude a manufacturer from 

issuing broader notification by other 

electronic means to reach vehicle 

owners, such as through radio or social 

media. While direct notification through 

contact information specific to the 

owner is preferred, NHTSA has 

contemplated the difficulties associated 

with, among other things, recalls 

involving older vehicles. Accordingly, 

the proposed rule implements the twotiered approach discussed above: 

requiring all reasonable efforts to effect 

notification through contact information 

specific to each owner, and where 

notification cannot be effected in that 

manner, requiring additional 

notification by other electronic means 

reasonably calculated to reach the 

owners that could not be reached. 

EMA also observed that the NPRM 

did not address the lead time for 

manufacturers ahead of when the 

agency would require compliance with 

this rule. EMA commented that the 

compliance date should be no sooner 

than one year after publication, which 

would allow manufacturers to make 

necessary changes to their databases and 

systems. SBMTC requested a longer, 

three-year lead time, stating that a 

majority of manufacturers do not have 

electronic notification systems or 

necessary databases of information in 

place. Cummins generally requested a 

lead time sufficient to obtain relevant 

data and build records. 

NHTSA proposes to make the 

electronic notification requirement 

applicable to recalls filed one year or 

later following publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. NHTSA 

recognizes that manufacturers require 

time to develop procedures and collect 

information to effect notification by 

electronic means as provided in this 

supplemental proposed rule and 

believes that one year is adequate for 

manufacturers to do so. This lead time 

will apply to all manufacturers, 

regardless of whether they are 

manufacturers of motor vehicles or 

motor vehicle equipment, and 

regardless of the type of motor vehicles 

or motor vehicle equipment they 

manufacture. Although manufacturers 

will have this lead time, NHTSA 

nonetheless would encourage the 

adoption of the requirements as soon as 

practicable. 

IV. Proposed Changes To Recall 

Notification Requirements 

Accordingly, consistent with the 

above, NHTSA is proposing the 

following revisions to 49 CFR part 577 

related to electronic recall notifications, 

which differ in several respects from 

what was previously proposed in the 

NPRM. 

NHTSA is, as it did in the NPRM, 

proposing to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to 

require that manufacturers issue recall 

notifications by electronic means, in 

addition to first-class mail, each time a 

recall notification is required. 

Notification by electronic means 

includes notification by any of the 

following: electronic mail, text message, 

radio or television notification, invehicle notification, social media or 

targeted online campaign, telephone call 

(automated or otherwise), or other 

similar electronic means. Copies of 

proposed notifications by electronic 

means must be submitted to NHTSA’s 

Recall Management Division (NEF–107) 

through the online Manufacturers Recall 

Portal no fewer than five Federal 

Government business days before the 

manufacturer intends to begin sending 

the notifications. 

NHTSA is also differing from the 

NPRM in that it is now proposing that 

electronic recall notification be 

accomplished using a two-tiered 

approach. First, all reasonable efforts 

must be made to transmit the 

notification by electronic means through 

contact information specific to each 

individual owner and purchaser. Then, 

where any such person(s) cannot be 

notified in this manner, additional 

notification by electronic means must be 

issued that is reasonably calculated to 

reach such person(s). 

This supplemental proposal would 

require that notification by electronic 

means issued must not be inconsistent 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1917 

30See generally Tips for Increasing Recall 

Completion Rates, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recallcompletion-rates (last visited Nov., 2024). 

31The Independent Monitor of Takata, Update on 

the State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (Dec. 21, 

2018), at 16, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/2018-update_on_

the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.pdf. 

32http://www.safercar.gov currently redirects to 

http://www.nhtsa.gov. 

with the notice that is required under 49 

U.S.C. 30119. For any chosen electronic 

means of notification, where practical 

and where it can be included in a 

manner consistent with this part, the 

notification must include an internet 

hyperlink to a representative copy of a 

notice that complies with the content 

requirements of 577.5(b) through (g), 

along with instructions for how the 

owner or purchaser can determine 

whether his or her vehicle or equipment 

is impacted. In addition, where 

notification by electronic means is not 

transmitted through contact information 

specific to an individual owner or 

purchaser, manufacturers subject to the 

requirement in 49 CFR 573.15 to 

provide recall information searchable by 

vehicle identification number (VIN) 

must direct people in that notification to 

NHTSA’s VIN search tool or the 

manufacturer’s VIN search tool. 

The agency is again proposing to 

retain discretion to require other 

electronic means and additional 

notifications if a manufacturer’s chosen 

means is impractical, does not feasibly 

reach all affected owners or purchasers, 

or is otherwise deemed inappropriate. 

NHTSA’s supplemental proposal here 

also includes, unlike the NPRM, a 

requirement that manufacturers, before 

issuing an electronic notification and at 

least once every five years, submit to 

NHTSA’s Recall Management Division 

(NEF–107) through the online 

Manufacturers Recall Portal a plan for 

the notification of owners and 

purchasers of recalls by electronic 

means. The plan must describe the 

means of electronic notification that the 

manufacturer anticipates using for its 

recalls, and how the manufacturer will 

evaluate the selection of the electronic 

means used for a recall, including an 

explanation of any preferences for the 

use of certain electronic means. A 

manufacturer’s electronic recall 

notifications must be consistent with its 

plans unless it notifies NHTSA no fewer 

than ten Federal Government business 

days before the anticipated issuance of 

any such notifications that would be 

inconsistent with its plan. An 

accompanying explanation for the 

inconsistency is also required under this 

proposal. 

Lastly, under this supplemental 

proposed rule, any follow-up 

notification sent by electronic means 

must conform with the above 

requirements. The Administrator may 

authorize the use of other means besides 

first-class mail and electronic means for 

a follow-up notification. 

V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part 

577 

Below are further revisions to part 577 

in this supplemental proposed rule that 

do not relate specifically to recall 

notification by electronic means and 

were not proposed in the NPRM. 

A. Language in Recall Notifications 

This supplemental proposed rule 

includes revisions to the language 

required on the outside of each 

envelope containing an owner 

notification letter under 49 CFR 

577.5(a), and at the top of the owner 

notification letter under 49 CFR 

577.5(b). Currently, the former provision 

requires the language ‘‘SAFETY 

RECALL NOTICE’’ on the outside of 

each envelope, and the latter requires 

the language ‘‘IMPORTANT SAFETY 

RECALL’’ at the top of the notification. 

Effective recall messaging includes, 

among other things, conveying a sense 

of urgency.30 For example, in a survey 

done by the Independent Monitor of 

Takata of 262 drivers of vehicles 

affected by the Takata air bag recalls, 

‘‘results illustrated that communications 

using high impact words and phrases 

motivate affected vehicle owners to 

act,’’ with respondents stating that 

outreach should describe the recalls as, 

among other things, ‘‘urgent.’’ 31

NHTSA is proposing to change both 

statements above to ‘‘URGENT SAFETY 

RECALL.’’ The agency believes that this 

proposed change will improve the 

impact that recall notifications have on 

owners and further motivate them to 

obtain a remedy. While NHTSA 

recognizes that for certain recalls a 

remedy is not immediately available, all 

recalls involve either a defect that poses 

an ‘‘unreasonable risk’’ or a 

noncompliance with a safety standard 

(which was adopted based on a finding 

of a safety need, 49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). 

NHTSA invites comment on this 

proposed change. 

B. Updated Office and Website 

Designations 

This supplemental proposed rule 

revises two outdated references to the 

office designation of NHTSA’s Recall 

Management Division in 49 CFR 

577.5(a), changing ‘‘NVS–215’’ to ‘‘NEF– 

107.’’ In addition, the proposed rule 

updates the website to which 

manufacturers must direct owners in 

recall notifications, changing ‘‘http://

www.safercar.gov’’ to NHTSA’s current 

website, ‘‘http://www.nhtsa.gov.’’ 32

C. Language Regarding FMVSS 

Noncompliances 

49 CFR 577.5 contains two 

references—in (a) and (c)(2)—to 

circumstances where it is determined 

that a motor vehicle or item of 

replacement equipment does not 

conform with a Federal motor vehicle 

safety standard (FMVSS). Specifically, 

this language refers to a ‘‘failure to 

conform’’ and products that ‘‘fail to 

conform.’’ NHTSA is proposing to 

change this language to instead read 

‘‘does not comply with,’’ which is in 

greater alignment with the statutory 

language and ordinary usage in this 

context. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 

14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed under Executive Order 12866, 

Executive Order 13563, or Executive 

Order 14094. NHTSA has considered 

the impact of this rulemaking action 

under the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This action would amend 

49 CFR part 577 to update the 

procedures by which manufacturers 

notify owners and purchasers of defects 

and noncompliances in an effort to 

improve vehicle safety recall 

completion. This rulemaking imposes 

no new significant burdens on the 

manufacturers and does not create 

significant related costs that would 

require the development of a full cost/ 

benefit evaluation. Since this action also 

does not change the number of entities 

or individuals subject to this 

requirement, the impacts of the rule are 

limited. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NHTSA has also considered the 

impact of this notice under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that 

this rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The amendments almost entirely affect 

manufacturers of motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment. 

SBA uses size standards based on the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’), Subsector 336— 

Transportation Equipment 

Manufacturing, which provides a small 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1918 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

33See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table 

of size standards, https://www.sba.gov/document/ 

support-table-size-standards. 34 88 FR 73636 (Oct. 26, 2023). 

business size standard of 1,500 

employees or fewer for automobile and 

light duty motor vehicle manufacturing 

businesses. Other motor vehicle-related 

industries have lower size requirements 

that range between 1,000 and 1,500 

employees.33 Small businesses are 

subject to the notification requirements 

and therefore may be affected by the 

proposed changes in this final rule. 

However, the impacts of this rulemaking 

on small businesses are minimal, as this 

supplemental proposed rule does not 

impose a significant additional burden 

or additional costs. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded 

that no additional consultation with 

States, local governments, or their 

representative is mandated beyond the 

rulemaking process. The agency has 

determined that the rulemaking would 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant consultation 

with State and local officials or the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. The rule would apply 

to manufacturers of motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment and would not 

have a substantial direct effect on States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 is not implicated and 

consultation with State and local 

officials is not required. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. NHTSA is aware of the 

November 12, 2024 decision in Marin 

Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation 

Administration, No. 23–1067 (D.C. Cir. 

Nov. 12, 2024). To the extent that a 

court may conclude that the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA are not 

judicially enforceable or binding on this 

agency action, NHTSA has nonetheless 

elected to follow those regulations at 40 

CFR parts 1500–1508, in addition to 

DOT’s procedures/regulations 

implementing NEPA at DOT NEPA 

Order 5610.1C, to meet the agency’s 

obligations under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq. 

In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 

U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order 

5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that 

this rule is categorically excluded 

pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) 

(planning and administrative activities, 

such as promulgation of rules, that do 

not involve or lead directly to 

construction). This rule is not 

anticipated to result in any 

environmental impacts and there are no 

extraordinary circumstances present in 

connection with this rulemaking. 

This supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes revised 

requirements for manufacturers to notify 

owners, purchasers, and dealers of 

defects or noncompliances in motor 

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 

The primary change proposed in this 

rulemaking, which is required by 

statute, requires manufacturers to 

distribute through electronic means 

certain safety recall information that 

they are already required to distribute in 

hard copy (by first class mail). The other 

changes proposed in this rulemaking are 

ministerial, such as updating the office 

designation and web address for 

NHTSA in NHTSA’s regulations. 

Accordingly, this rule is not expected to 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. A person is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information by a Federal agency 

unless the collection displays a valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. This 

supplemental proposed rulemaking if 

finalized would create new information 

collection requirements under defect 

and recall notification requirements. In 

compliance with the PRA, NHTSA has 

separately published a notice requesting 

comment on NHTSA’s intention to 

request approval to reinstate a 

previously approved collection. For 

additional details, see NHTSA’s most 

recent 60-day notice.34

Agency: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Title: 49 CFR parts 573 and 577, 

Defect and Noncompliance Notification. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement with 

modification of a previously approved 

collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0004. 

Form Number: The collection of this 

information uses no standard form. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three (3) years from the date 

of approval. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: This collection covers the 

information collection requirements 

found within various statutory 

provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 

that address and require manufacturer 

notifications to NHTSA of safety-related 

defects and failures to comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) in motor vehicles and motor 

vehicle equipment, as well as the 

provision of particular information 

related to the ensuing owner and dealer 

notifications and free remedy campaigns 

that follow those notifications. The 

sections of the Act imposing these 

requirements include 49 U.S.C. 30118, 

30119, 30120, and 30166. Many of these 

requirements are implemented through, 

and addressed with more specificity in, 

49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports (part 573) and 49 CFR 577, 

Defect and Noncompliance Notification 

(part 577). 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and Use of the Information: 

The information is needed for NHTSA 

to better serve the public by monitoring 

safety recalls and having consumers 

provided timely recall information. 

Owners and purchasers will benefit 

from the increased ease with which they 

can ascertain information on recalled 

vehicles. The public at large will benefit 

from a decrease in the numbers of 

defective or noncompliant vehicles on 

public roads—and the corresponding 

decrease in injuries and fatalities 

expected to result from increased recall 

completion. 

Affected Public: Should this proposal 

be made final, it is expected that all 

manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and 

currently subject to defect and 

noncompliance reporting and 

notification requirements will be subject 

to the updated requirements. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

NHTSA receives reports of defects or 

noncompliances from roughly 240 

distinct manufacturers per year. 

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that 

there will be a total of 240 respondents 

per year associated with this 

supplemental proposed rule. 

Frequency: As circumstances 

necessitate. 

Estimate of the Total Annual 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

Resulting from the Collection of 

Information: This supplemental 

proposed rule requiring manufacturers 

to notify affected owners and purchasers 

of recalls by electronic means in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1919 

35Alliance and Global stated that the cost per VIN 

for emails and text messages ranges from $0.01 to 

$0.20 per VIN from vendors, and that individuals 

receiving certain notifications may also incur costs 

(e.g., via text messaging, depending on the 

individual’s wireless service plan), which it 

commented that NHTSA should also evaluate. 

However, Alliance and Global acknowledged that 

set-up fees are not significant cost drivers. 

36See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the 

Coordinated Remedy Program, Coordinated 

Communications Recommendations (Dec. 23, 

2016), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ 

nhtsa.gov/files/documents/coordinated_

communications_recommendations_1.pdf. 

37See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the 

Coordinated Remedy Program, The State of the 

Takata Airbag Recalls (Nov. 15, 2017) at 66 fig.37, 

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

files/documents/2017-the_state_of_the_takata_

airbag_recalls.pdf. 

38See U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

Auto Recalls: NHTSA Should Take Steps to Further 

Improve the Usability of Its website (GAO–18–127) 

(Dec. 4, 2017), at 10–11, 13–15 (indicating 

articulated safety risk is the most influential factor 

in owners’ decision to obtain repair, and that 

owners have additional preference for receiving 

recall notification by electronic means); 82 FR 

45941 (Oct. 2, 2017); GM Safety Recalls: 

Innovations in Customer Outreach (NHTSA 

Retooling Recalls Workshop, April 28, 2015); Auto 

Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings (Nov. 2015); 

GM letter to NHTSA in comment to NPRM, Docket 

No. NHTSA–2016–0001 (Mar. 23, 2016); Susanne 

Schmidt & Martin Eisend, Advertising Repetition: A 

Meta-Analysis on Effective Frequency in 

Advertising, 44 J. Advertising 415, 425 (2015); Blair 

Entenmann, Marketing Help!, The Principles of 

Targeted Direct Mail Advertising (2007); Chuck 

Flantroy, Direct Mail Works: The Power of 

Frequency, Kessler Creative (Aug. 31, 2016). 

39See May 2023 National Industry-Specific 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

NAICS 336100—Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, 

available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/ 

naics4_336100.htm (accessed Dec. 5, 2024). 

40See Sept. 10, 2024 Employer Cost for Employee 

Compensation Summary, available at https://

www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ecec.htm (accessed 

Dec. 5, 2024). 

addition to first-class mail notifications 

will add some paperwork burden to the 

industry. In the NPRM, NHTSA 

reasoned that electronic methods of 

recall notification such as email, overthe-air communications, and use of 

social-media accounts are existing 

technologies and largely free of charge. 

However, the agency did anticipate that 

each recall would require 4 burden 

hours for a manufacturer to plan its 

strategy for meeting the electronic 

notification requirement and executing 

that strategy. With an estimated 854 

recalls filed each year, NHTSA 

estimated 3,416 burden hours (854 

recalls × 4 hours) for this new 

requirement. 

TIA commented that it believed this 

estimate was accurate. Alliance and 

Global, however, disagreed that the 

electronic methods of communication 

are ‘‘largely free of charge,’’ stating radio 

and television ‘‘can be very expensive 

with limited ability to evaluate 

effectiveness.’’ Alliance and Global, 

citing costs incurred to pay vendors to 

handle message preparation and 

distribution, also commented that 

‘‘[e]ven for internet-based electronic 

communication such as text messaging 

and emails, manufacturers will incur 

substantial costs for acquiring contact 

information for customers.’’ Alliance 

and Global further noted that as contact 

information for direct means of 

electronic communication change, 

manufacturers will incur additional 

costs to keep that contact information 

up-to-date, and expressed concern with 

how NHTSA’s discretion to order 

additional notifications may affect its 

burden estimate that ‘‘assumes only one 

electronic notification per recall.’’ 

Alliance and Global requested that 

NHTSA identify various costs and 

separately evaluate those costs with 

respect to different industry sectors 

(listing, in particular, light duty vehicle 

manufacturers, heavy vehicle 

manufacturers, child restraint 

manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and 

equipment manufacturers). Alliance and 

Global also requested that OMB require 

NHTSA develop a plan to evaluate 

whether the rule would actually result 

in increased participation rates 

‘‘[b]ecause the true costs and benefits of 

this proposal are unknown.’’ 35 Alliance 

and Global further requested that 

NHTSA consider allowing recall 

notifications exclusively through 

electronic means ‘‘[i]n light of the high 

cost of first-class mailings.’’ 

As an initial matter and in support of 

the benefits of this proposal, since the 

NPRM, NHTSA has engaged in several 

years of oversight of the recalls of 

Takata air bag inflators—the largest 

automotive recall in U.S. history. Under 

recommendations issued by the 

Independent Monitor of Takata in 

consultation with NHTSA, affected 

vehicle manufacturers have been 

conducting frequent outreach to affected 

owners using various methods of nontraditional means, including electronic 

means (e.g., text messages and email).36

Among other things, completion 

percentages for recalls of the oldest 

vehicles affected by these recalls 

avoided a ‘‘leveling off’’ in completion 

percentage typically observed for recall 

campaigns involving vehicles 10 years 

or older.37 NHTSA has also previously 

pointed in other contexts to sources that 

tend toward advocating greater 

notification frequency to persuade 

action, and the utility of frequent 

outreach via multiple communications 

methods is supported by available 

information, including a report from the 

U.S. Government Accountability 

Office.38

For this supplemental proposed rule, 

NHTSA is revising its pending burdenhours estimate to account for the 

proposed requirement that 

manufacturers submit to NHTSA an 

electronic recall notification plan. 

NHTSA anticipates each electronic 

recall notification plan will take 24 

hours to develop and submit to the 

agency. With 240 distinct manufacturers 

filing at least one part 573 report each 

year, and an average of 24 hours to 

develop and submit each electronic 

recall notification plan, NHTSA 

estimates that it will take manufacturers 

1,152 hours annually to develop and 

submit electronic recall notification 

plans to NHTSA (24 hours × 240 

distinct manufacturers × 1⁄5 [one plan 

every five years]). For planning and 

executing electronic recall notification 

for each recall, NHTSA is reducing its 

previous estimate in the NPRM of 4 

burden hours to 2 burden hours to 

account for efficiencies realized from 

developing electronic recall notification 

plans. With an estimated 976 recalls 

filed each year, the agency estimates 

1,952 burden hours (952 recalls × 2 

hours) for manufacturers to plan and 

execute their strategies for each recall to 

meet the electronic recall notification 

requirements. Accordingly, NHTSA 

estimates a total of 3,104 annual burden 

hours associated with this supplemental 

proposed rule. 

Estimated Total Annual Reporting 

and Recording Burden Cost Resulting 

from the Information Collection: To 

calculate the labor cost associated with 

developing and submitting the 

electronic recall notification, NHTSA 

looked at wage estimates for the type of 

personnel involved with compiling and 

submitting the documents. NHTSA 

estimates the total labor costs associated 

with these burden hours by looking at 

the average wage for technical writers in 

the motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) estimates that the average hourly 

wage for technical writers (BLS 

Occupation code #27–3042) in the 

motor vehicle manufacturing industry is 

$41.64.39 The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

estimates that private industry workers’ 

wages represent 70.3% of total labor 

compensation costs.40 Therefore, 

NHTSA estimates the hourly labor costs 

to be $59.23 for technical writers (BLS 

Occupation code #27–3042) in the 

motor vehicle manufacturing industry. 

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total 

annual labor cost associated with the 

3,104 total annual burden hours to be 

$183,849.92 (3,104 hours × $59.23). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1920 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

NHTSA appreciates the comments 

that it received that address the cost of 

the proposed rule and recognizes there 

may be additional costs associated with 

compliance not raised in the NPRM. At 

this juncture, with the various revisions 

and additions in this supplemental 

proposed rule, the agency solicits 

further comment on the associated costs 

before further addressing the comments 

it has already received on this issue. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspects of this 

information collection, including (a) 

whether the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) whether the 

Department’s estimate for the burden of 

information collection is accurate; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Please submit any comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this document to NHTSA and 

OMB. Although comments may be 

submitted during the entire comment 

period, comments received within 30 

days of publication are most useful. 

NHTSA recognizes that the collection 

of information contained in this 

supplemental proposed rule may be 

subject to revision in response to public 

comments. 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal agencies 

and departments shall use technical 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, using such technical standards 

as a means to carry out policy objectives 

or activities determined by the agencies 

and departments.’’ This proposed rule 

would amend 49 CFR part 577 to update 

the procedures by which manufacturers 

notify owners and purchasers of defects 

and noncompliances in an effort to 

improve vehicle safety recall 

completion, and does not involve any 

voluntary consensus standards as it 

relates to NHTSA or this rulemaking. 

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996), 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation including all provisions 

repealed, circumscribed, displaced, 

impaired, or modified; (3) provides a 

clear legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) adequately defines key 

terms; and (7) addresses other important 

issues affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. This 

document is consistent with that 

requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA has 

considered these issues and determined 

that this rule does not have any 

retroactive or preemptive effect. The 

rule only applies to procedures by 

which manufacturers notify owners and 

purchasers of defects and 

noncompliances, with amendments as 

to how that is done prospectively. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement associated with this rule 

that individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–4, requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the cost, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually. Because this 

rulemaking would not have a $100 

million effect, no Unfunded Mandates 

assessment will be prepared. 

I. Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 

2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1) 

is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under E.O. 12866, 

and is likely to have a significantly 

adverse effect on the supply of, 

distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) 

that is designated by the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs as a significant 

energy action. This rulemaking is not 

subject to E.O. 13211. 

J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in the spring and fall of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

K. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

L. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraph) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor 

vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Regulatory Text 

For the reasons set forth above, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

577 as follows: 

PART 577–DEFECT AND 

NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 577 

continues to read as follows: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1921 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116– 

121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 

1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8. 

■ 2. Amend § 577.5 by: 

■ a. revising the first, fifth, sixth, and 

eighth sentences of paragraph (a),; 

■ b. revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b); 

■ c. revising paragraph (c)(2); and 

■ d. revising paragraph (g)(1)(vii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 577.5 Notification pursuant to a 

manufacturer’s decision. 

(a) When a manufacturer of motor 

vehicles or replacement equipment 

determines that any motor vehicle or 

item of equipment produced by the 

manufacturer contains a defect that 

relates to motor vehicle safety, or does 

not comply with an applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard, or the 

manufacturer files a defect or 

noncompliance information report 

under 49 CFR part 573, the 

manufacturer shall provide notification 

in accordance with § 577.7(a), unless the 

manufacturer is exempted by the 

Administrator (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such 

notification. * * * Except as authorized 

by the Administrator, the manufacturer 

shall submit a copy of its proposed 

owner notification letter and, for recalls 

filed January 12, 2026 or later, 

notification by electronic means, 

including any provisions or attachments 

related to reimbursement, to NHTSA’s 

Recall Management Division (NEF–107) 

through the online Manufacturers Recall 

Portal no fewer than five (5) Federal 

Government business days before it 

intends to begin sending the 

notifications to owners. The 

manufacturer shall mark the outside of 

each envelope in which it sends an 

owner notification letter with a notation 

that includes the phrase ‘‘URGENT 

SAFETY RECALL,’’ all in capital letters 

and in a type that is larger than that 

used in the address section, and is also 

distinguishable from the other type in a 

manner other than size. * * * Except 

where the format of the envelope has 

been previously approved by NHTSA’s 

Recall Management Division (NEF–107), 

each manufacturer must submit the 

envelope format it intends to use to that 

division through the online 

Manufacturers Recall Portal at least five 

(5) Federal Government business days 

before mailing the notification to 

owners. * * * 

(b) At the top of the notification, there 

must be the statement ‘‘URGENT 

SAFETY RECALL,’’ in all capital letters 

and in a type size that is larger than that 

used in the remainder of the letter. 

* * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) ‘‘(Manufacturer’s name or 

division) has decided that (identified 

motor vehicles, in the case of 

notification sent by a motor vehicle 

manufacturer; identified equipment, in 

the case of notification sent by a 

replacement equipment manufacturer) 

does not comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. (number 

and title of standard).’’ 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) A statement informing the owner 

that he or she may submit a complaint 

to the Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; 

or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety 

Hotline at 1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1– 

800–424–9153); or go to http://

www.nhtsa.gov, if the owner believes 

that: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 577.7 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 577.7 Time and manner of notification. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) In the case of a notification 

required to be sent by a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, by first-class mail and by 

electronic means, to each person who is 

registered under State law as the owner 

of the vehicle and whose name, address, 

and contact information for notification 

by electronic means are reasonably 

ascertainable by the manufacturer 

through State records or other sources 

available to it. If, in the case of 

notification by electronic means, the 

owner cannot be reasonably ascertained, 

the manufacturer shall notify the most 

recent purchaser known to the 

manufacturer. For first-class mail and 

electronic notifications, the 

manufacturer shall also provide 

notification to each lessee of a leased 

motor vehicle that is covered by an 

agreement between the manufacturer 

and a lessor under which the 

manufacturer is to notify lessees directly 

of safety-related defects and 

noncompliances. 

(ii) In the case of a notification 

required to be sent by a replacement 

equipment manufacturer— 

(A) By first-class mail and by 

electronic means to the most recent 

purchaser known to the manufacturer, 

and 

(B) (Except in the case of a tire) if 

decided by the Administrator to be 

required for motor vehicle safety, by 

public notice in such manner as the 

Administrator may require after 

consultation with the manufacturer. 

(iii) In the case of a manufacturer 

required to provide notification 

concerning any defective or 

noncomplying tire, by first-class or 

certified mail and by electronic means. 

(iv) In the case of a notification to be 

sent by a lessor to a lessee of a leased 

motor vehicle, by first-class mail and by 

electronic means to the most recent 

lessee known to the lessor. Such 

notification shall be sent within ten 

days of the lessor’s receipt of the 

notification from the vehicle 

manufacturer. 

* * * * * 

(e) Notification by electronic means as 

required by paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section and as described in this 

paragraph (e) applies to recalls filed 

January 12, 2026 or later, and includes 

notification by any of the following: 

electronic mail, text message, radio or 

television notification, in-vehicle 

notification, social media or targeted 

online campaign, telephone call 

(automated or otherwise), or other 

similar electronic means. 

(1) Requirements of notification by 

electronic means. (i) All reasonable 

efforts shall be made to transmit 

notification by electronic means through 

contact information specific to each 

individual owner, purchaser, and lessee. 

Where any owner, purchaser, or lessee 

cannot be notified in this manner, 

additional notification by other 

electronic means shall be issued that is 

reasonably calculated to reach such 

owners, purchasers, and lessees. 

(ii) Notification by electronic means 

must not be inconsistent with the notice 

required under 49 U.S.C. 30119. For any 

chosen electronic means of notification, 

where it is practical and can be 

included in a manner consistent with 

this part, the notification must include 

an internet hyperlink to a notice that 

complies with the content requirements 

of § 577.5(b) through (g), or provide an 

internet hyperlink to a representative 

copy of a notice that complies with the 

content requirements of § 577.5(b) 

through (g) along with instructions for 

how the owner, purchaser, or lessee can 

determine whether his or her vehicle or 

equipment is impacted. 

(iii) In the case of a notification by 

electronic means that is not transmitted 

through contact information specific to 

an individual owner, purchaser, or 

lessee, manufacturers who are subject to 

the requirements in § 573.15 to provide 

recall information searchable by vehicle 

identification number (VIN) must direct 

people in that notification to NHTSA’s 

VIN search tool or the manufacturer’s 

VIN search tool. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
1922 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Administrator discretion. The 

Administrator retains the discretion to 

require other electronic means and 

additional notifications if a 

manufacturer’s chosen means is 

impractical, does not feasibly reach all 

affected owners, purchasers, or lessees, 

or is otherwise deemed inappropriate. 

(3) Electronic recall notification plans. 

(i) At least once every five (5) years 

manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA’s 

Recall Management Division (NEF–107), 

through the online Manufacturers Recall 

Portal, a plan for the notification of 

owners, purchasers, and lessees of 

recalls by electronic means. This plan 

must describe the means of electronic 

notification that the manufacturer 

anticipates utilizing for its recalls and 

how the manufacturer will evaluate the 

selection of the electronic means 

utilized for a recall, including an 

explanation of any preferences for the 

use of certain electronic means. 

(ii) A manufacturer’s electronic recall 

notifications issued under this section 

must be consistent with its electronic 

recall notification plan unless the 

manufacturer notifies NHTSA no fewer 

than ten (10) Federal Government 

business days before the anticipated 

issuance of any notification by 

electronic means that would be 

inconsistent with its electronic recall 

notification plan, with an accompanying 

explanation for the inconsistency. 

■ 4. Amend § 577.10 by revising 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 577.10 Follow-up notification. 

* * * * * 

(g) A follow-up notification sent by 

first-class mail or by electronic means 

shall be sent in conformance with the 

requirements of § 577.7 of this part. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this part, the Administrator may 

authorize the use of other means besides 

first-class mail and electronic means for 

a follow-up notification. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under 

authority delegated pursuant to 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.8. 

Eileen Sullivan, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31011 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 16 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060; 

FXFR13360900000–245–FF09F14000] 

RIN 1018–BH15 

Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Two 

Freshwater Mussel Genera and One 

Crayfish Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) proposes to add all 

species of freshwater mussels from two 

genera, Asian pond mussels 

(Sinanodonta species) and golden 

mussels (Limnoperna species), to the 

list of injurious mollusks. Additionally, 

the Service proposes to add marbled 

crayfish (Procambarus virginalis) to the 

list of injurious crustaceans. Listing 

these taxa as injurious will prohibit the 

importation of any live animal, larvae, 

viable egg, or hybrid of these taxa into 

the United States, except as specifically 

authorized. These listings would also 

prohibit shipment of any live animal, 

larvae, viable egg, or hybrid of these 

species between the continental United 

States, District of Columbia, Hawaii, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any 

territory or possession of the United 

States, except as specifically authorized. 

The action is necessary to protect 

wildlife and wildlife resources by 

preventing the introduction and 

subsequent establishment of these 

foreign aquatic invertebrates into 

ecosystems of the United States. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 11, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060, which 

is the docket number for this proposed 

rule. You may submit a comment by 

clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by one of the methods described 

above. We will post all comments on 

https://www.regulations.gov, meaning 

that we will generally post any personal 

information you provide (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). This proposed rule and all 

supporting documentation, including 

the environmental action statement and 

references cited in this proposed rule, 

are available on https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Sommers, Injurious Wildlife 

Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Branch of Aquatic 

Invasive Species; MS: FAC, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803; by telephone at 571–329–2214. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point of 

contact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–FAC–2024–0060 

on https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) proposes to add the genus of 

Asian pond mussels (Sinanodonta), the 

genus of golden mussels (Limnoperna), 

and the marbled crayfish (Procambarus 

virginalis) to the list of injurious 

wildlife in title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 16.13 (50 

CFR 16.13). This action would prohibit 

these genera and species from being 

imported into the United States and 

shipped between the continental United 

States, District of Columbia, Hawaii, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any 

territory or possession of the United 

States, except as specifically authorized. 

The purpose of listing all species from 

two freshwater mussel genera and one 

crayfish species is to protect U.S. 

interests and natural resources by 

preventing introduction of these 

injurious aquatic invertebrates into 

ecosystems of the United States. The 

final rule may confirm individual, some, 

or all proposed species for listing as 

injurious. 

Based on current taxonomic 

classification, there are 26 species in the 

Sinanodonta genus, 1 species in the 

Limnoperna genus, and the marbled 

crayfish (Procambarus virginalis) that 

we are proposing for listing as injurious 

under 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) (the injurious 

wildlife listing provision of the Lacey 

Act). These taxa share various generic 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS