```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1909-1922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31011]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 577

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001]
RIN 2127-AL66

Updated Means of Providing Recall Notification

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

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act (FAST Act), NHTSA is proposing to amend the means of required 
recall notification to include notification by electronic means, in 
addition to first-class mail, and proposing certain other attendant 
obligations related to this requirement. NHTSA is also proposing to 
revise certain language that is currently required for recall 
notifications, as well as to update certain language in the regulation 
and the office designation for NHTSA's Recall Management Division and 
NHTSA's web address.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2025. In 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 
comment on a previously approved collection. See the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section under Regulatory Notices and Analyses below. 
Please submit all comments relating to the information collection 
requirements to NHTSA and the Office of

[[Page 1910]]

Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES 
section on or before March 11, 2025. Comments to OMB are most useful if 
submitted within 30 days of publication.
    Proposed compliance date: NHTSA proposes to make the electronic 
notification requirements in this proposed rule applicable to recalls 
filed one year or later following publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. Early compliance is permitted but optional. NHTSA 
proposes to make compliance with all other requirements in this 
proposed rule be required as of the effective date of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

     Internet: Go to 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 771 (2012).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Public Law 114-94, 24104, 129 Stat. 1703 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 25, 2016, NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments and supporting information about 
how the agency may update the means manufacturers must utilize to 
effectively notify owners and purchasers of a recall (whether as a 
first notification or as a follow-up notification).\4\ On September 2, 
2016, after consideration of comments received in response to the 
ANPRM, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to 
amend 49 CFR part 577 to require that manufacturers issue recall 
notifications to affected owners, purchasers, and lessees by electronic 
means in addition to first-class mail, as well as require that follow-
up recall notifications be issued by electronic means, in addition to 
first-class mail.\5\ For simplicity in the preamble of this proposed 
rule, ``owners'' includes lessees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 81 FR 4007 (Jan. 25, 2016).
    \5\ 81 FR 60332 (Sept. 1, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After further consideration, including a review of the comments 
received in response to the NPRM and based on additional learnings--
including knowledge acquired through the ongoing oversight of the 
Takata recalls, where manufacturers commonly use electronic forms of 
recall notification--NHTSA is issuing this supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). NHTSA believes that this supplemental 
proposal will better ensure electronic recall notifications reach and 
provide effective notice to owners and purchasers. Effective recall 
notifications are critical to ensuring that as many vehicles and items 
of equipment as possible are remedied, addressing the safety risk of a 
defect or noncompliance.\6\ In this SNPRM, NHTSA again proposes to 
amend 49 CFR part 577 to require that manufacturers issue recall 
notifications to affected owners and purchasers by electronic means in 
addition to first-class mail. This multi-channel, multi-touch approach 
helps to effectively communicate a recall and motivate completion.\7\ 
The increasing use of electronic recall communications and the agency's 
greater understanding of

[[Page 1911]]

potential data sources supporting such communications over the last 
several years has informed this supplemental proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Tips for Increasing Recall Completion Rates,'' https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completion-rates.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After further consideration, NHTSA believes certain meaningful 
changes to its prior proposal are warranted and invites comment on such 
changes. One of the primary revisions from the NPRM is what is now a 
two-tiered approach to issuing electronic recall notification. This 
approach first requires all reasonable efforts to send electronic 
notification through contact information specific to each owner and 
purchaser. Then, if electronic notification cannot be sent in that 
manner, the electronic notification must be issued by other electronic 
means reasonably calculated to reach the owners and purchasers who 
could not be reached through individual contact information. The main 
purpose of this approach is to promote the use of notifications that 
are most likely to reach and persuade owners and purchasers. Such 
notifications are, in the agency's experience--including from working 
with over a dozen vehicle manufacturers issuing numerous communications 
to owners in the Takata recalls--direct communications to the specific 
consumer.
    Other revisions from the NPRM include increased flexibility with 
respect to the content of the electronic notification, and an added 
requirement that manufacturers submit to the agency electronic 
notification plans that describe anticipated approaches to electronic 
recall notification.
    NHTSA is also proposing several revisions to 49 CFR part 577 that 
are not specific to recall notification by electronic means. One 
proposed revision is to the language required on the outside of each 
envelope containing an owner notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(a) 
and at the top of the owner notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(b), 
which NHTSA is proposing to change from ``SAFETY RECALL NOTICE'' and 
``IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL'' (respectively) to ``URGENT SAFETY RECALL'' 
in both locations. A second proposed revision is to language in 49 CFR 
577.5 that currently refers to a ``failure to conform'' and products 
that ``fail to conform'' to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard. The proposed revisions read instead ``does not comply with,'' 
which is more in alignment with the statutory language and ordinary 
usage in this context. NHTSA is also proposing to update the website to 
which owners are to be directed for recall notifications--changing 
``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B) (as effective to September 30, 
2012).
    \9\ Id. Replacement equipment includes, e.g., motorcycle helmets 
and child restraint systems. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) (providing 
that for purposes of, inter alia, 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121, 
``replacement equipment'' is motor vehicle equipment that is not 
original equipment); id. sec. 30102(b)(1)(C) (defining original 
equipment as that which is installed on a motor vehicle at the time 
of delivery to the first purchaser); see also 49 CFR 573.4 (similar 
definitions).
    \10\ Id. at 30119(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 
49 U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary, and by delegation NHTSA's 
Administrator,\11\ the flexibility to determine the manner by which 
notifications of recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent. The 
amended statutory language permitted the agency to engage in a 
rulemaking to require notification by means other than (or in addition 
to) first-class mail to owners and purchasers of vehicles or equipment 
subject to safety recalls. In 2015, the FAST Act expounded on this 
authority by specifically mandating the agency amend 49 CFR 577.7 to 
include the issuance of recall notifications by electronic means in 
addition to notification by first-class mail.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA is delegated authority by the Secretary of 
Transportation to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United 
States Code. 49 CFR 501.2.
    \12\ Notification to dealers and distributors is generally 
required to be sent ``by certified mail, verifiable or electronic 
means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite 
distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable 
means.'' 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and distributors are not 
notified by first-class mail. Therefore, the FAST Act did not 
require the agency to change the means of notification for dealers 
and distributors, and NHTSA is not doing so here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While 49 U.S.C. 30119 previously authorized the Secretary to order 
a second recall notification if the Secretary determined that the first 
notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles 
or items of equipment being returned for remedy, the statute was silent 
as to notifications beyond this second notification. Section 31310 of 
MAP-21 clarified this issue by amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, 
under 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order 
additional notifications if the Secretary determines that a second 
notification also failed to result in an adequate number of motor 
vehicles or items of equipment being returned for remedy.

B. Summary of the 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In the NPRM issued in September 2016, NHTSA proposed amending 49 
CFR 577.7 to require that manufacturers issue recall notifications by 
electronic means, in addition to first-class mail, each time a recall 
notification is required.\13\ The agency proposed that ``electronic 
means'' include ``electronic mail, text messages, radio, or television 
notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air 
alerts, social media or targeted online campaigns, phone calls, 
including automated phone calls, or other real time means.'' The 
proposal would have permitted, without further direction, manufacturer 
discretion to select the electronic means. NHTSA also proposed 
retaining agency discretion to require manufacturers to issue 
additional recall notifications by other electronic means if a 
manufacturer's chosen means was impractical, did not feasibly reach all 
of the impacted purchasers or owners, or the agency otherwise deemed 
the means inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NHTSA issued an ANRPM on January 25, 2016. That ANRPM is 
summarized in the NPRM. 81 FR 4007 (ANPRM); 81 FR 60332 (NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA further proposed to require that: electronic recall 
notifications comply with the content requirements in 49 CFR part 577; 
electronic recall notifications provide a hyperlink to a notice that 
complies with those requirements, or the manufacturer

[[Page 1912]]

provide a representative copy of such a notice along with instructions 
on how an owner can determine whether a vehicle or an item of equipment 
is impacted; and the electronic recall notification direct recipients 
to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the manufacturer's search tool.\14\ 
NHTSA also proposed amending 49 CFR 577.10, consistent with the above, 
to clarify that where NHTSA requires follow-up recall notifications, 
those notifications must be issued by electronic means, in addition to 
first-class mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under 49 CFR 573.15, ``[m]anufacturers that have 
manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or 
delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into 
the United States 25,000 or more light vehicles, or 5,000 or more 
motorcycles in the current calendar year or prior calendar year'' 
are required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based 
safety recall search tools on its website pursuant to existing 
regulation. NHTSA's VIN search tool is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA invited comment on these and any alternative proposals that 
would allow manufacturers numerous options for issuing electronic 
recall notification while ensuring the communication of the traditional 
components of part 577 first-class mailings. NHTSA specifically 
requested comment on its proposals to: permit manufacturer discretion 
as to the means chosen to issue electronic notifications; the agency's 
proposed definition of ``electronic means'' and whether further 
definition of the term ``social media or targeted online campaigns'' 
was needed; the agency's proposal to require manufacturers required to 
support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall 
search tools on their websites to include in their electronic 
notifications directions to those tools; and the agency's clarification 
that follow-up notifications must be issued by, in addition to first-
class mail, electronic means consistent with the rule.

III. Comments on the 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and NHTSA's 
Responses

    NHTSA received comments from fourteen commenters on its NPRM: Jeff 
Burton (commenting as an individual); School Bus Manufacturers 
Technical Council (SBMTC); SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. (SafetyBeltSafe); 
Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson); National School 
Transportation Association (NSTA); Cummins, Inc. (Cummins); Advocates 
for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates); IHS Automotive (IHS); Tire 
Industry Association (TIA); Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA); 
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA); National Automobile 
Dealers Association (NADA); and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 
Inc. and Association of Global Automakers, Inc., which submitted joint 
comments (Alliance and Global). All comments were reviewed and 
considered, and to the extent relevant to this supplemental proposal 
are discussed in this section by subject matter.

A. NHTSA's Authority and Scope of the Rule

    Alliance and Global commented that Congress only intended the FAST 
Act to authorize the issuance of recall notifications using electronic 
means in certain recalls--not to require the use of electronic means 
for all recalls. Several commenters also expressed concern that the 
rule might conflict with certain Federal laws such as the Controlling 
the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM 
Act), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call 
Implementation Act. NADA and Alliance and Global requested that NHTSA 
obtain acknowledgement from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that notifications issued under the 
rule would be permitted under those laws.
    NHTSA disagrees with the interpretation from Alliance and Global. 
The FAST Act specifically provides that ``the Secretary shall prescribe 
a final rule revising the regulations under [49 CFR 577.7] to include 
notification by electronic means in addition to notification by first-
class mail.'' \15\ This language mandates a change so that electronic 
notifications are included in the regulation with the same force as 
first-class mail notifications and to apply to all recalls, as first-
class mail notification currently does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Public Law 114-94, 24104(a)(1) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the concerns pertaining to potential conflict with Federal 
laws, NHTSA reiterates that this rule is legally mandated, and based on 
the agency's analysis and judgment, NHTSA has determined that this 
supplemental proposed rule will not conflict with these laws; recall 
notifications are safety-related informational messages. For many years 
manufacturers have been using electronic means of recall notification 
as a supplement to their required mailed notices, and NHTSA is unaware 
of the FCC or FTC taking any adverse action against entities issuing 
such electronic notifications. Indeed, IHS commented that manufacturers 
are already providing notifications via channels other than first-class 
mail, and Alliance and Global acknowledged in their comments that in 
recent recalls many of its members have used various electronic means 
of recall notification.

B. Electronic Notification Requirements

    As a general matter, comments were supportive of the proposed rule, 
particularly for its potential to increase the reach of recall 
notifications and the flexibility it would afford manufacturers by 
allowing them to choose the electronic means best suited to a recall. 
Many critical comments centered on the specific means of electronic 
notification proposed, and the specific content proposed for those 
notifications. Comments were also fairly extensive on additional and 
follow-up notifications under the proposal.
1. Means of Required Electronic Notification
    Comments on this topic included IHS's request that the regulations 
be drafted broadly ``so as not to limit the means of providing notice 
which may not be contemplated today.'' Advocates commented that NHTSA 
should require manufacturers to issue electronic notifications both 
directly to individuals (e.g., through email), as well as issue more 
general notifications (e.g., through social-media campaigns), while 
Alliance and Global commented that they do not believe that every 
recall should require both first-class mail and electronic 
notification. RMA observed that tire manufacturers do not receive 
electronic contact information from tire purchasers as part of the tire 
registration process, and so it ``strongly supports the flexibility'' 
for manufacturers to choose the electronic means they use to provide 
notification under the proposed rule. TIA expressed concern with 
collecting email addresses at the point of sale, and requested NHTSA 
study and consider establishing a third-party data depository.\16\ 
Harley-Davidson, agreeing with the flexibility of the rule, suggested 
adding language to clarify that multiple, different means of electronic 
notification may be used in a single recall to reach owners and 
purchasers. Alliance and Global requested clarification of the meaning 
of ``other media,'' as included in the proposal, given that the 
proposed rule would require electronic recall communication. Cummins 
requested the final rule allow multiple manufacturers

[[Page 1913]]

involved in the same recall to issue electronic recall notifications on 
behalf of one another to collectively satisfy their obligations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ TIA also submitted extensive comment on its support for a 
TIN to VIN system. While NHTSA recognizes there may be benefits to 
such a system that, among other things, may make electronic recall 
notification ``easier,'' the potential creation of such a system is 
beyond the scope of this proposed rule.
    \17\ For example, Manufacturers A and B could agree that 
Manufacturer A will issue email notifications on behalf of both 
manufacturers, and Manufacturer B will issue a radio campaign and 
first-class mail notifications on behalf of both manufacturers--
thereby satisfying, through electronic mail, radio, and first-class 
mail, both Manufacturer A's and B's obligations under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained further below, NHTSA is proposing to require that 
manufacturers issue both electronic and first-class mail recall 
notifications for every recall, but is modifying the rule previously 
proposed in the NPRM with a two-tiered approach to targeting recipients 
of the notification. Specifically, the proposed rule would require that 
manufacturers use all reasonable efforts to issue electronic recall 
notifications through contact information specific to each individual 
owner and purchaser. If not every affected owner and purchaser can be 
reached through such notification (e.g., because relevant contact 
information is unavailable), then manufacturers must issue additional 
electronic notification reasonably calculated to reach those who are 
unreachable through contact information specific to them (i.e., more 
general forms of notification, such as radio or social media 
campaigns). NHTSA believes this approach best promotes the use of 
electronic notifications that are most likely to reach affected owners 
and purchasers and improve recall participation, while at the same time 
mitigates costs to manufacturers where all individual owners and 
purchasers can otherwise be notified directly through electronic means.
    Accordingly, under the proposed rule, manufacturers may, and likely 
often will, issue electronic notifications by multiple means to address 
a single recall and are not required to use one specific means. NHTSA 
intends the proposed rule to allow for multiple electronic means and 
recognizes Harley-Davidson's comment to add clearer language to this 
effect, although the agency believes that the relevant provision's 
definition that ``include[s] notification by any of the following'' 
electronic means is sufficient.\18\ NHTSA also believes it has 
sufficiently afforded manufacturers the flexibility to choose the 
electronic means by which they issue recall notifications in the 
proposed rule--including means, as IHS commented, that ``may not be 
contemplated today''--by providing an extensive but non-exhaustive list 
of potential electronic means of notification in the proposed rule. In 
the same vein, the proposed rule does not attempt to further define, 
nor in any particular way limit, ``social media or targeted online 
campaigns,'' which should alleviate concern that further definition of 
that term could ``constrain innovation in the recall communication 
space.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Such a framework--allowing for a combination of multiple 
electronic means as needed to notify consumers--should also address 
TIA's concern about collecting one specific type of contact 
information (email addresses) at the point of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further alignment with the proposed rule's flexibility, NHTSA 
declines to limit ``traditional broadcast methods such as print media, 
radio and television'' to only ``rare . . . significant, large-scale 
recall[s],'' as RMA requested in its comments. NHTSA emphasizes that 
manufacturers must evaluate the circumstances of any particular recall 
on a case-by-case basis and does not wish to prospectively limit--or, 
conversely, direct--the potential use of certain electronic means of 
notification. As explained above, to improve recall participation while 
at the same time mitigate costs to manufacturers, the proposed rule 
requires all reasonable efforts to issue electronic notification using 
contact information specific to individual owners and purchasers, and 
where such notification is not feasible, additional means of 
notification (such as, perhaps, some of the ``traditional broadcast 
methods'' RMA references) are required.
    NHTSA also declines in this proposed rule to allow, as suggested by 
Cummins, multiple manufacturers involved in the same recall to issue 
electronic recall notifications on behalf of one another to 
collectively satisfy their electronic-notification obligations. NHTSA 
certainly encourages manufacturers to share recall-related knowledge, 
information, and best practices with one another. However, NHTSA 
believes that requiring each manufacturer to independently satisfy the 
notification requirements in the proposed rule is preferable to a 
``divide-and-conquer'' approach--even where a manufacturer's 
notifications may overlap with those of another involved 
manufacturer.\19\ NHTSA encourages coordination among manufacturers to 
effectively address recalls, although NHTSA believes that the overall 
effectiveness of the rule is best advanced by each manufacturer meeting 
the requirements on an individual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ While NHTSA acknowledges Cummins's concern that certain 
contact information may be limited for some manufacturers, the 
agency believes that with the numerous electronic means available--
including but not limited to those referenced in the rule--even in 
such circumstances manufacturers will be able to independently 
satisfy their obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, a greater number of recall notifications issued through a 
greater variety of means should generally increase recall participation 
and the likelihood that notification will ultimately reach all affected 
owners and purchasers.\20\ If manufacturers were permitted to satisfy 
their obligations through other manufacturers' notifications, recalls 
would involve fewer notifications issued through fewer means--which 
could have the opposite effect. Furthermore, manufacturers recurrently 
involved with one another in the same recalls could, over time, become 
dependent on each other to issue notifications by certain electronic 
means, which could negatively impact the efficacy and development of 
electronic notifications in future recalls. Specifically, allowing 
manufacturers to issue electronic notifications on behalf of one 
another could discourage manufacturers to, as each recall arises, 
independently revisit and evaluate their own universe of available 
electronic means (and the effectiveness thereof). Without the onus on 
each manufacturer to reach its affected owners and purchasers, 
manufacturers are unlikely to improve their approaches to electronic 
recall notification, e.g., through the gathering of additional 
electronic contact information, or exploring additional means that may 
be more effective. Such improvements may be critical to reaching 
affected owners and purchasers in recalls that do not involve multiple 
manufacturers accustomed to issuing notifications on one other's 
behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Although perhaps some affected owners and purchasers will 
be unmotivated to participate regardless of the nature and number of 
notifications they receive, based on the agency's experience, 
analysis, and judgment, the increased dissemination of recall 
information far outweighs this potential shortcoming. See generally 
82 FR 60789, 60793-94 (Dec. 22, 2017) (explaining, in discussion 
about the Takata air bag inflator recalls, how available information 
supports notion that frequent outreach via multiple communications 
methods is effective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be reiterated from the NPRM that this supplemental 
proposed rule neither amends, nor alters, a manufacturer's obligations 
under 49 CFR part 573. Manufacturers must continue to comply with 49 
CFR 573.6 by filing representative copies of ``all notices, bulletins, 
and other communications that relate directly to the defect or 
noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, 
dealer, or purchaser.'' Electronic notifications are notices, 
bulletins, or other communications

[[Page 1914]]

under 49 CFR 573.6. Currently, manufacturers provide representative 
copies to NHTSA via the online Recalls Portal. Under this proposed 
rule, manufacturers will continue to do so for required electronic 
notification, as the online Recalls Portal will be updated to allow for 
manufacturers to select an applicable electronic means of notification. 
Representative copies of notification are required even if a 
manufacturer chooses to issue notices via electronic means such as 
radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console 
message, over-the-air alerts, telephone calls, or other means. 
Recognizing the potentially large file sizes of some such 
notifications, however (e.g., videos), NHTSA encourages manufacturers 
to submit representative copies of electronic notifications to the 
online Recalls Portal in a file format or manner with minimal storage 
requirements. Manufacturers may submit, for example, hyperlinks to the 
notification, screenshots of messages or alerts, or scripts of calls or 
other radio messages.
    This supplemental proposed rule requires recall notification by 
both electronic means and first-class mail for every recall, but not 
necessarily for every instance of notification for that recall. In 
short, a manufacturer must provide electronic notification for both the 
initial ``interim'' (if necessary, where a remedy is unavailable at the 
time of notification) and ``final'' recall notifications.\21\ As 
described above, the agency believes this requirement will increase the 
likelihood that notification will ultimately reach all affected owners 
and purchasers and increase recall participation. However, while the 
Administrator may require follow-up notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, 
this proposed rule does not require those notifications always be by 
both first-class mail and electronic means.\22\ To clarify, NHTSA is 
proposing to add language relating to electronic means of notification 
to 49 CFR 577.10(g) to ensure that follow-up electronic notifications 
issued under that section conform to the requirements for electronic 
notifications that are in this supplemental proposed rule. NHTSA also 
confirms that this supplemental proposed rule requiring notification by 
electronic means does not apply to voluntary follow-up recall 
notifications, although the agency encourages manufacturers to issue 
notifications by the means most likely to reach and motivate affected 
owners and purchasers. In addition, to address the request from 
Alliance and Global to clarify the meaning of ``other media'' under 49 
CFR 577.10(g), that term may include, for example, various forms of 
print media other than first-class mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Manufacturers must issue a recall notification no later 
than 60 days from the date they file a defect or noncompliance 
information report, and where a remedy is unavailable at the time of 
that notification, manufacturers must also issue a second 
notification within a reasonable time (and in accordance with part 
577) once a remedy becomes available. 49 CFR 577.7(a)(1).
    \22\ The current regulation provides, in part, that ``[t]he 
scope, timing, form, and content of such follow-up notification will 
be established by the Administrator, in consultation with the 
manufacturer.'' 49 CFR 577.10(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Content of Required Electronic Notification
    As to the content required in notifications, IHS observed that the 
proposed rule would require that electronic recall notifications 
contain, in addition to any applicable references to VIN search tools, 
all the content that must be included in first-class mail notifications 
under 49 CFR 577.5. Alliance and Global and IHS questioned the value of 
such content because if the first-class mail notification did not 
result in recall completion, electronic notification containing the 
same language would be unlikely to yield a different result. Alliance 
and Global, while not ``objecting'' to the notion, suggested that there 
could be value in not requiring manufacturers to direct viewers to VIN 
search tools in broad electronic notification--and instead allowing 
manufacturers more flexibility in determining the content of such 
notifications. IHS further hypothesized a potential unintended 
consequence of the rule's content requirement: limiting the electronic 
means used because the extent of the required content may render some 
electronic notifications ``unintelligible.'' Toyota observed that 
requiring all the text in 577 would be difficult for in-vehicle recall 
messages, because owners would need to scroll to view the entire 
message and may be dissuaded from reading them. Toyota noted it would 
be more effective if messages in this format were ``short and to the 
point.''
    The NPRM did allow for providing, in lieu of the content of the 
first-class mail notice on the face of the electronic notification, an 
internet hyperlink to that content (or a representative copy of a 
notice with that content). However, this supplemental proposed rule is 
more flexible, requiring that the content in electronic notification 
must not be ``inconsistent'' with 49 U.S.C. 30119 (as opposed to 
requiring compliance with 49 CFR 577.7),\23\ and requiring an internet 
hyperlink to a representative copy of the first-class mail notice only 
``where practical and can be included in a manner consistent with the 
purpose of [49 CFR part 577].'' Such an approach should alleviate 
concerns about the redundancy and/or unintelligibility of electronic 
notifications. However, consistent with its recent experience and 
learnings in the recall space, NHTSA also believes that, in some cases, 
language from a first-class mail notice might have a different effect 
on an owner or purchaser when the means of delivery is electronic--even 
if the first-class mail notice did not motivate the owner or purchaser 
to obtain a remedy.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Note the proposed approach still requires adherence to 49 
CFR 577.8 (generally prohibiting the inclusion of disclaimers).
    \24\ See generally Tips for Increasing Recall Completion Rates, 
NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completion-rates (last visited Nov. 8, 2024) (noting multi-
channel outreach, including forms of electronic communication); The 
Independent Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated Remedy Program, 
Update on the State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (Jan. 23, 2020) at 
8, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls-012320-tag.pdf (observing escalation of outreach communications, both in 
frequency and in type, ``has proven successful to engage previously 
unresponsive affected vehicle owners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to Alliance and Global's comments questioning the value of 
directing recipients to VIN search tools, NHTSA considers such 
information vital to improving recall participation. Moreover, this 
content requirement is minimally burdensome and does not, in the 
agency's view, substantially hinder a manufacturer's ability to, as 
Alliance and Global state, ``design electronic notifications that might 
appeal to hard-to-reach populations.'' The requirement also provides 
substantive consistency between the first-class mail notice and the 
electronic notice such that owners are more likely to associate the 
notices with one another, thereby reinforcing their authority and 
credibility. NHTSA is, however, revising its proposal to only require 
that owners be directed to either NHTSA's or the manufacturer's VIN 
search tool (not both).
3. Additional and Follow-Up Notification Requirements
    Alliance and Global requested that NHTSA justify why manufacturers 
must issue every recall notification (including follow-up 
notifications) by both electronic means and first-class mail. Alliance 
and Global also requested confirmation that the proposed rule's 
electronic-notification requirement would apply only to notifications 
issued

[[Page 1915]]

pursuant to regulations--i.e., not to voluntary follow-up 
notifications. As explained above, while the Administrator may require 
follow-up notifications under 49 CFR 577.10, this proposed rule does 
not require those notifications always be by both first-class mail and 
electronic means, and this was not NHTSA's intent in the NPRM. Follow-
up electronic notifications that are issued under that section would 
need to conform to the requirements for electronic notifications that 
are in this supplemental proposed rule. Notification by electronic 
means is also not required for voluntary follow-up recall 
notifications, although the agency encourages manufacturers to issue 
notifications by the means most likely to reach and motivate affected 
owners and purchasers.
    EMA, Alliance and Global, and Harley-Davidson also commented on 
NHTSA's discretion to require manufacturers to issue additional 
notification by other electronic means where NHTSA deems that a 
manufacturer's chosen electronic means is impractical, does not 
feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners impacted, or is 
otherwise inappropriate. Specifically, Harley-Davidson requested 
clarification of what constitutes ``impractical'' and ``inappropriate'' 
electronic means of notification, as well as clarification of what 
factors would inform NHTSA whether to require a manufacturer to issue 
additional notification by other electronic means. Harley-Davidson 
suggested that NHTSA at a minimum consider the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the recall, including safety risk, scope, and recall 
completion at the time of the determination. EMA and Alliance and 
Global expressed more foundational concerns about NHTSA's discretion. 
Alliance and Global asserted that NHTSA's discretion would be 
unfettered, and that NHTSA would be able to exercise its discretion on 
every recall because it is impossible to identify an electronic 
communication that will feasibly reach every affected owner and 
purchaser. EMA suggested that NHTSA might even require a manufacturer 
to use a method of notification that is ineffective or impracticable.
    To address such concerns, EMA and Alliance and Global requested 
regulatory provisions, including ``safe harbors,'' to give deference to 
a manufacturer's chosen means of electronic notification. Specifically, 
EMA requested the rule require that NHTSA consult with manufacturers 
before the issuance of additional notification by electronic means, and 
further suggested a safe harbor for the follow-up provisions of 49 CFR 
577.10 to provide that NHTSA will not ordinarily order a manufacturer 
to issue additional notifications via an electronic means different 
from that which the manufacturer has chosen. Alliance and Global also 
requested a safe harbor for the issuance of additional notification by 
electronic means: a presumption that NHTSA will not ordinarily order a 
different means of electronic notification after it approves the form 
of notification selected and identified by the manufacturer in a report 
under 49 CFR part 573.
    NHTSA again is proposing to retain agency discretion to require 
manufacturers to issue additional recall notifications by other 
electronic means if a manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does 
not feasibly reach all of the impacted purchasers or owners, or the 
agency otherwise deems the means inappropriate. NHTSA intends to 
consider all relevant facts and circumstances of each recall when 
determining whether to require additional notification by electronic 
means, including but not limited to the factors Harley-Davidson listed 
in its comments. Some additional factors NHTSA may consider are 
reflected in 49 CFR 577.10(b) (listing factors relevant to whether to 
require follow-up notifications).
    As a general response to EMA's and Alliance and Global's comments 
expressing concern about NHTSA's discretion to require additional 
notification by electronic means, the agency reiterates that Congress 
mandated NHTSA implement a rule requiring manufacturers issue recall 
notification by electronic means, and the provisions of the FAST Act 
reflect an interest in improving recall notification and completion. 
NHTSA is fulfilling this mandate pursuant to its statutory and 
regulatory authority through the framework set out in this proposed 
rule which, including the provisions retaining agency discretion, is 
consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Safety Act and 
Congress's intent.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As to EMA's more specific concern that NHTSA may require a 
manufacturer to use an ineffective or impracticable method of 
notification, NHTSA has no intention of requiring any action that 
fails to further the objectives of the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alliance and Global expressed particular concern that NHTSA could 
exercise such discretion in every recall because it is impossible to 
identify an electronic communication that will feasibly reach all 
affected owners and purchasers. ``Feasible'' means, in most relevant 
part, ``capable of being done or carried out,'' or ``reasonable, 
likely.'' \26\ And NHTSA believes that for every recall there will 
exist a notification by electronic means, or a combination of such 
means, that is reasonably likely to reach each affected owner and 
purchaser. Notably, in their comments Alliance and Global cite only to 
relatively individualized electronic means of notification--stating 
they are ``unaware of any email list, text message directory, or social 
media outlet that will reach all affected owners'' (emphasis removed). 
There are many other, broader electronic means available that do not 
require such information. The proposed rule contemplates the very 
concern Alliance and Global express here, and prescribes (in fact, 
requires) a solution: additional notification by general electronic 
means reasonably calculated to reach other affected owners and 
purchasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, feasible, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feasible (last visited Nov. 8, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adopting EMA's proposal to require that NHTSA consult with a 
manufacturer before requiring additional notification by electronic 
means risks undermining a significant cornerstone of the rule: 
flexibility afforded to manufacturers to choose the means of electronic 
notification. Part of the appeal of such flexibility is that 
manufacturers are often well-positioned to gauge the likely 
effectiveness of various electronic means of notification for any 
particular recall.\27\ In accord with this approach, NHTSA anticipates 
exercising discretion to require additional notifications by electronic 
means in relatively limited situations, as it does today for first-
class mail notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This flexibility may be particularly beneficial when a 
recall involves vehicles not owned by individuals, but entities--as 
SBMTC recognized with respect to its school buses, which are owned 
by fleet agencies, school districts, and counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consultation with NHTSA may become necessary, however, where a 
manufacturer's chosen means has not produced results--i.e., an adequate 
number of vehicles returned to remedy.\28\ At that juncture NHTSA finds 
it appropriate and in alignment with the flexibility of the proposed 
rule that the agency consult with the manufacturer to develop an 
approach to improve the effectiveness of its recall notifications. This 
framework is already reflected in the regulations, and NHTSA finds no 
reason to add additional language to this effect in 49 CFR 577.10, as 
EMA appears to request.\29\ Similarly, as NHTSA

[[Page 1916]]

believes this existing framework best carries out Congress's mandate 
and balances, among other things, flexibility, oversight, and 
accountability, the agency also finds no reason to adopt an explicit 
safe harbor or presumption to defer to a manufacturer's chosen means of 
electronic notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 49 CFR 577.10(a).
    \29\ This supplemental proposed rule would merely confirm that 
the Administrator also has the option to require follow-up 
notification by electronic means (in addition to the option to 
require first-class mail and/or other media).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This supplemental proposed rule, however, includes a requirement 
not included in the NPRM: that manufacturers submit, by the effective 
date of this rule, an ``electronic recall notification plan.'' At a 
minimum, this plan must describe the means of electronic notification 
that the manufacturer anticipates using for its recalls (based on, 
e.g., the typical contact information available for owners and 
purchasers) and describe how the manufacturer expects to approach the 
selection of electronic means for a recall (e.g., noting any 
preferences for certain means, and why). A manufacturer's electronic 
recall notification must be consistent with its plans unless the 
manufacturer notifies NHTSA ten days before the issuance of electronic 
notifications that the notification will be inconsistent with the plan. 
Such electronic recall notification plans must be submitted to the 
agency every five years, although a revised plan may be submitted at 
any time to account for changes in approaches to electronic recall 
notification. NHTSA believes this requirement adequately apprises the 
agency of each manufacturer's general approach to electronic recall 
notification, while preserving manufacturers' flexibility to select 
electronic means best suited for each recall.
    Currently, 49 CFR 573.15 requires manufacturers of a certain number 
of light vehicles or motorcycles in the current or prior calendar year 
to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall 
search tools on their websites. NHTSA requests public comment on 
whether to implement a similar threshold for this requirement to submit 
an electronic recall notification plan to NHTSA.

C. Application of the Rule to Vehicles Built Before the Compliance 
Date, and Lead Time

    NHTSA proposes to make the electronic notification requirements 
applicable to recalls filed one year or later following publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register, with early compliance permitted 
but optional. NHTSA proposes to make compliance with all other 
requirements in this proposed rule be required on the effective date of 
the final rule.
    EMA commented that the final rule should not apply to recalled 
vehicles built before the compliance date of the rule. EMA requested 
this approach because information to achieve the likely most effective 
electronic means of notification for heavy-duty vehicles--email, 
telephone, and/or text--will not in all cases be known to the 
manufacturer until after the compliance date of the final rule. Cummins 
similarly requested, without additional comment, that the final rule 
not apply to vehicles manufactured prior to the compliance date.
    NHTSA declines to limit the proposed rule's applicability to only 
vehicles built after the compliance date of the rule. NHTSA recognizes 
that for some recalls, individualized notification by electronic means 
such as those EMA references in its comments will be unavailable for 
some affected owners and/or purchasers because of the unavailability of 
the owners' or purchasers' electronic contact information. However, 
this does not preclude a manufacturer from issuing broader notification 
by other electronic means to reach vehicle owners, such as through 
radio or social media. While direct notification through contact 
information specific to the owner is preferred, NHTSA has contemplated 
the difficulties associated with, among other things, recalls involving 
older vehicles. Accordingly, the proposed rule implements the two-
tiered approach discussed above: requiring all reasonable efforts to 
effect notification through contact information specific to each owner, 
and where notification cannot be effected in that manner, requiring 
additional notification by other electronic means reasonably calculated 
to reach the owners that could not be reached.
    EMA also observed that the NPRM did not address the lead time for 
manufacturers ahead of when the agency would require compliance with 
this rule. EMA commented that the compliance date should be no sooner 
than one year after publication, which would allow manufacturers to 
make necessary changes to their databases and systems. SBMTC requested 
a longer, three-year lead time, stating that a majority of 
manufacturers do not have electronic notification systems or necessary 
databases of information in place. Cummins generally requested a lead 
time sufficient to obtain relevant data and build records.
    NHTSA proposes to make the electronic notification requirement 
applicable to recalls filed one year or later following publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register. NHTSA recognizes that 
manufacturers require time to develop procedures and collect 
information to effect notification by electronic means as provided in 
this supplemental proposed rule and believes that one year is adequate 
for manufacturers to do so. This lead time will apply to all 
manufacturers, regardless of whether they are manufacturers of motor 
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and regardless of the type of 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment they manufacture. Although 
manufacturers will have this lead time, NHTSA nonetheless would 
encourage the adoption of the requirements as soon as practicable.

IV. Proposed Changes To Recall Notification Requirements

    Accordingly, consistent with the above, NHTSA is proposing the 
following revisions to 49 CFR part 577 related to electronic recall 
notifications, which differ in several respects from what was 
previously proposed in the NPRM.
    NHTSA is, as it did in the NPRM, proposing to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to 
require that manufacturers issue recall notifications by electronic 
means, in addition to first-class mail, each time a recall notification 
is required. Notification by electronic means includes notification by 
any of the following: electronic mail, text message, radio or 
television notification, in-vehicle notification, social media or 
targeted online campaign, telephone call (automated or otherwise), or 
other similar electronic means. Copies of proposed notifications by 
electronic means must be submitted to NHTSA's Recall Management 
Division (NEF-107) through the online Manufacturers Recall Portal no 
fewer than five Federal Government business days before the 
manufacturer intends to begin sending the notifications.
    NHTSA is also differing from the NPRM in that it is now proposing 
that electronic recall notification be accomplished using a two-tiered 
approach. First, all reasonable efforts must be made to transmit the 
notification by electronic means through contact information specific 
to each individual owner and purchaser. Then, where any such person(s) 
cannot be notified in this manner, additional notification by 
electronic means must be issued that is reasonably calculated to reach 
such person(s).
    This supplemental proposal would require that notification by 
electronic means issued must not be inconsistent

[[Page 1917]]

with the notice that is required under 49 U.S.C. 30119. For any chosen 
electronic means of notification, where practical and where it can be 
included in a manner consistent with this part, the notification must 
include an internet hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that 
complies with the content requirements of 577.5(b) through (g), along 
with instructions for how the owner or purchaser can determine whether 
his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted. In addition, where 
notification by electronic means is not transmitted through contact 
information specific to an individual owner or purchaser, manufacturers 
subject to the requirement in 49 CFR 573.15 to provide recall 
information searchable by vehicle identification number (VIN) must 
direct people in that notification to NHTSA's VIN search tool or the 
manufacturer's VIN search tool.
    The agency is again proposing to retain discretion to require other 
electronic means and additional notifications if a manufacturer's 
chosen means is impractical, does not feasibly reach all affected 
owners or purchasers, or is otherwise deemed inappropriate.
    NHTSA's supplemental proposal here also includes, unlike the NPRM, 
a requirement that manufacturers, before issuing an electronic 
notification and at least once every five years, submit to NHTSA's 
Recall Management Division (NEF-107) through the online Manufacturers 
Recall Portal a plan for the notification of owners and purchasers of 
recalls by electronic means. The plan must describe the means of 
electronic notification that the manufacturer anticipates using for its 
recalls, and how the manufacturer will evaluate the selection of the 
electronic means used for a recall, including an explanation of any 
preferences for the use of certain electronic means. A manufacturer's 
electronic recall notifications must be consistent with its plans 
unless it notifies NHTSA no fewer than ten Federal Government business 
days before the anticipated issuance of any such notifications that 
would be inconsistent with its plan. An accompanying explanation for 
the inconsistency is also required under this proposal.
    Lastly, under this supplemental proposed rule, any follow-up 
notification sent by electronic means must conform with the above 
requirements. The Administrator may authorize the use of other means 
besides first-class mail and electronic means for a follow-up 
notification.

V. Additional Revisions to 49 CFR Part 577

    Below are further revisions to part 577 in this supplemental 
proposed rule that do not relate specifically to recall notification by 
electronic means and were not proposed in the NPRM.

A. Language in Recall Notifications

    This supplemental proposed rule includes revisions to the language 
required on the outside of each envelope containing an owner 
notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(a), and at the top of the owner 
notification letter under 49 CFR 577.5(b). Currently, the former 
provision requires the language ``SAFETY RECALL NOTICE'' on the outside 
of each envelope, and the latter requires the language ``IMPORTANT 
SAFETY RECALL'' at the top of the notification. Effective recall 
messaging includes, among other things, conveying a sense of 
urgency.\30\ For example, in a survey done by the Independent Monitor 
of Takata of 262 drivers of vehicles affected by the Takata air bag 
recalls, ``results illustrated that communications using high impact 
words and phrases motivate affected vehicle owners to act,'' with 
respondents stating that outreach should describe the recalls as, among 
other things, ``urgent.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See generally Tips for Increasing Recall Completion Rates, 
NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/tips-increasing-recall-completion-rates (last visited Nov., 2024).
    \31\ The Independent Monitor of Takata, Update on the State of 
the Takata Airbag Recalls (Dec. 21, 2018), at 16, available at 
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/2018-update_on_the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is proposing to change both statements above to ``URGENT 
SAFETY RECALL.'' The agency believes that this proposed change will 
improve the impact that recall notifications have on owners and further 
motivate them to obtain a remedy. While NHTSA recognizes that for 
certain recalls a remedy is not immediately available, all recalls 
involve either a defect that poses an ``unreasonable risk'' or a 
noncompliance with a safety standard (which was adopted based on a 
finding of a safety need, 49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). NHTSA invites comment on 
this proposed change.

B. Updated Office and Website Designations

    This supplemental proposed rule revises two outdated references to 
the office designation of NHTSA's Recall Management Division in 49 CFR 
577.5(a), changing ``NVS-215'' to ``NEF-107.'' In addition, the 
proposed rule updates the website to which manufacturers must direct 
owners in recall notifications, changing ``http://www.safercar.gov'' to 
NHTSA's current website, ``http://www.nhtsa.gov.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ http://www.safercar.gov currently redirects to http://www.nhtsa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Language Regarding FMVSS Noncompliances

    49 CFR 577.5 contains two references--in (a) and (c)(2)--to 
circumstances where it is determined that a motor vehicle or item of 
replacement equipment does not conform with a Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard (FMVSS). Specifically, this language refers to a 
``failure to conform'' and products that ``fail to conform.'' NHTSA is 
proposing to change this language to instead read ``does not comply 
with,'' which is in greater alignment with the statutory language and 
ordinary usage in this context.

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866, Executive Order 13563, or Executive Order 14094. NHTSA has 
considered the impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action would 
amend 49 CFR part 577 to update the procedures by which manufacturers 
notify owners and purchasers of defects and noncompliances in an effort 
to improve vehicle safety recall completion. This rulemaking imposes no 
new significant burdens on the manufacturers and does not create 
significant related costs that would require the development of a full 
cost/benefit evaluation. Since this action also does not change the 
number of entities or individuals subject to this requirement, the 
impacts of the rule are limited.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impact of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The amendments almost entirely affect manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
    SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS''), Subsector 336--Transportation 
Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small

[[Page 1918]]

business size standard of 1,500 employees or fewer for automobile and 
light duty motor vehicle manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-
related industries have lower size requirements that range between 
1,000 and 1,500 employees.\33\ Small businesses are subject to the 
notification requirements and therefore may be affected by the proposed 
changes in this final rule. However, the impacts of this rulemaking on 
small businesses are minimal, as this supplemental proposed rule does 
not impose a significant additional burden or additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of size 
standards, https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 
(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments, or their representative is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has determined that 
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule would apply to 
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and would 
not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 is not implicated and consultation with 
State and local officials is not required.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. NHTSA is aware of the November 12, 2024 
decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, 
No. 23-1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024). To the extent that a court may 
conclude that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
implementing NEPA are not judicially enforceable or binding on this 
agency action, NHTSA has nonetheless elected to follow those 
regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, in addition to DOT's procedures/
regulations implementing NEPA at DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, to meet the 
agency's obligations under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
    In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order 
5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded 
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative 
activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do not involve or lead 
directly to construction). This rule is not anticipated to result in 
any environmental impacts and there are no extraordinary circumstances 
present in connection with this rulemaking.
    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes 
revised requirements for manufacturers to notify owners, purchasers, 
and dealers of defects or noncompliances in motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment. The primary change proposed in this rulemaking, 
which is required by statute, requires manufacturers to distribute 
through electronic means certain safety recall information that they 
are already required to distribute in hard copy (by first class mail). 
The other changes proposed in this rulemaking are ministerial, such as 
updating the office designation and web address for NHTSA in NHTSA's 
regulations. Accordingly, this rule is not expected to significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. A person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) control number. This supplemental proposed rulemaking if 
finalized would create new information collection requirements under 
defect and recall notification requirements. In compliance with the 
PRA, NHTSA has separately published a notice requesting comment on 
NHTSA's intention to request approval to reinstate a previously 
approved collection. For additional details, see NHTSA's most recent 
60-day notice.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 88 FR 73636 (Oct. 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: 49 CFR parts 573 and 577, Defect and Noncompliance 
Notification.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement with modification of a previously 
approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
    Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard 
form.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three (3) years from the 
date of approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection covers 
the information collection requirements found within various statutory 
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301 that address and require manufacturer notifications to 
NHTSA of safety-related defects and failures to comply with Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment, as well as the provision of particular information 
related to the ensuing owner and dealer notifications and free remedy 
campaigns that follow those notifications. The sections of the Act 
imposing these requirements include 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30119, 30120, and 
30166. Many of these requirements are implemented through, and 
addressed with more specificity in, 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (part 573) and 49 CFR 577, 
Defect and Noncompliance Notification (part 577).
    Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the 
Information: The information is needed for NHTSA to better serve the 
public by monitoring safety recalls and having consumers provided 
timely recall information. Owners and purchasers will benefit from the 
increased ease with which they can ascertain information on recalled 
vehicles. The public at large will benefit from a decrease in the 
numbers of defective or noncompliant vehicles on public roads--and the 
corresponding decrease in injuries and fatalities expected to result 
from increased recall completion.
    Affected Public: Should this proposal be made final, it is expected 
that all manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and currently subject to 
defect and noncompliance reporting and notification requirements will 
be subject to the updated requirements.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: NHTSA receives reports of defects 
or noncompliances from roughly 240 distinct manufacturers per year. 
Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that there will be a total of 240 
respondents per year associated with this supplemental proposed rule.
    Frequency: As circumstances necessitate.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information: This supplemental 
proposed rule requiring manufacturers to notify affected owners and 
purchasers of recalls by electronic means in

[[Page 1919]]

addition to first-class mail notifications will add some paperwork 
burden to the industry. In the NPRM, NHTSA reasoned that electronic 
methods of recall notification such as email, over-the-air 
communications, and use of social-media accounts are existing 
technologies and largely free of charge. However, the agency did 
anticipate that each recall would require 4 burden hours for a 
manufacturer to plan its strategy for meeting the electronic 
notification requirement and executing that strategy. With an estimated 
854 recalls filed each year, NHTSA estimated 3,416 burden hours (854 
recalls x 4 hours) for this new requirement.
    TIA commented that it believed this estimate was accurate. Alliance 
and Global, however, disagreed that the electronic methods of 
communication are ``largely free of charge,'' stating radio and 
television ``can be very expensive with limited ability to evaluate 
effectiveness.'' Alliance and Global, citing costs incurred to pay 
vendors to handle message preparation and distribution, also commented 
that ``[e]ven for internet-based electronic communication such as text 
messaging and emails, manufacturers will incur substantial costs for 
acquiring contact information for customers.'' Alliance and Global 
further noted that as contact information for direct means of 
electronic communication change, manufacturers will incur additional 
costs to keep that contact information up-to-date, and expressed 
concern with how NHTSA's discretion to order additional notifications 
may affect its burden estimate that ``assumes only one electronic 
notification per recall.''
    Alliance and Global requested that NHTSA identify various costs and 
separately evaluate those costs with respect to different industry 
sectors (listing, in particular, light duty vehicle manufacturers, 
heavy vehicle manufacturers, child restraint manufacturers, tire 
manufacturers, and equipment manufacturers). Alliance and Global also 
requested that OMB require NHTSA develop a plan to evaluate whether the 
rule would actually result in increased participation rates ``[b]ecause 
the true costs and benefits of this proposal are unknown.'' \35\ 
Alliance and Global further requested that NHTSA consider allowing 
recall notifications exclusively through electronic means ``[i]n light 
of the high cost of first-class mailings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Alliance and Global stated that the cost per VIN for emails 
and text messages ranges from $0.01 to $0.20 per VIN from vendors, 
and that individuals receiving certain notifications may also incur 
costs (e.g., via text messaging, depending on the individual's 
wireless service plan), which it commented that NHTSA should also 
evaluate. However, Alliance and Global acknowledged that set-up fees 
are not significant cost drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter and in support of the benefits of this 
proposal, since the NPRM, NHTSA has engaged in several years of 
oversight of the recalls of Takata air bag inflators--the largest 
automotive recall in U.S. history. Under recommendations issued by the 
Independent Monitor of Takata in consultation with NHTSA, affected 
vehicle manufacturers have been conducting frequent outreach to 
affected owners using various methods of non-traditional means, 
including electronic means (e.g., text messages and email).\36\ Among 
other things, completion percentages for recalls of the oldest vehicles 
affected by these recalls avoided a ``leveling off'' in completion 
percentage typically observed for recall campaigns involving vehicles 
10 years or older.\37\ NHTSA has also previously pointed in other 
contexts to sources that tend toward advocating greater notification 
frequency to persuade action, and the utility of frequent outreach via 
multiple communications methods is supported by available information, 
including a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated 
Remedy Program, Coordinated Communications Recommendations (Dec. 23, 
2016), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/coordinated_communications_recommendations_1.pdf.
    \37\ See The Independent Monitor of Takata and the Coordinated 
Remedy Program, The State of the Takata Airbag Recalls (Nov. 15, 
2017) at 66 fig.37, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/2017-the_state_of_the_takata_airbag_recalls.pdf.
    \38\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Auto Recalls: 
NHTSA Should Take Steps to Further Improve the Usability of Its 
website (GAO-18-127) (Dec. 4, 2017), at 10-11, 13-15 (indicating 
articulated safety risk is the most influential factor in owners' 
decision to obtain repair, and that owners have additional 
preference for receiving recall notification by electronic means); 
82 FR 45941 (Oct. 2, 2017); GM Safety Recalls: Innovations in 
Customer Outreach (NHTSA Retooling Recalls Workshop, April 28, 
2015); Auto Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings (Nov. 2015); GM 
letter to NHTSA in comment to NPRM, Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001 (Mar. 
23, 2016); Susanne Schmidt & Martin Eisend, Advertising Repetition: 
A Meta-Analysis on Effective Frequency in Advertising, 44 J. 
Advertising 415, 425 (2015); Blair Entenmann, Marketing Help!, The 
Principles of Targeted Direct Mail Advertising (2007); Chuck 
Flantroy, Direct Mail Works: The Power of Frequency, Kessler 
Creative (Aug. 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this supplemental proposed rule, NHTSA is revising its pending 
burden-hours estimate to account for the proposed requirement that 
manufacturers submit to NHTSA an electronic recall notification plan. 
NHTSA anticipates each electronic recall notification plan will take 24 
hours to develop and submit to the agency. With 240 distinct 
manufacturers filing at least one part 573 report each year, and an 
average of 24 hours to develop and submit each electronic recall 
notification plan, NHTSA estimates that it will take manufacturers 
1,152 hours annually to develop and submit electronic recall 
notification plans to NHTSA (24 hours x 240 distinct manufacturers x 
\1/5\ [one plan every five years]). For planning and executing 
electronic recall notification for each recall, NHTSA is reducing its 
previous estimate in the NPRM of 4 burden hours to 2 burden hours to 
account for efficiencies realized from developing electronic recall 
notification plans. With an estimated 976 recalls filed each year, the 
agency estimates 1,952 burden hours (952 recalls x 2 hours) for 
manufacturers to plan and execute their strategies for each recall to 
meet the electronic recall notification requirements. Accordingly, 
NHTSA estimates a total of 3,104 annual burden hours associated with 
this supplemental proposed rule.
    Estimated Total Annual Reporting and Recording Burden Cost 
Resulting from the Information Collection: To calculate the labor cost 
associated with developing and submitting the electronic recall 
notification, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of personnel 
involved with compiling and submitting the documents. NHTSA estimates 
the total labor costs associated with these burden hours by looking at 
the average wage for technical writers in the motor vehicle 
manufacturing industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates 
that the average hourly wage for technical writers (BLS Occupation code 
#27-3042) in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry is $41.64.\39\ 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that private industry workers' 
wages represent 70.3% of total labor compensation costs.\40\ Therefore, 
NHTSA estimates the hourly labor costs to be $59.23 for technical 
writers (BLS Occupation code #27-3042) in the motor vehicle 
manufacturing industry. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual 
labor cost associated with the 3,104 total annual burden hours to be 
$183,849.92 (3,104 hours x $59.23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See May 2023 National Industry-Specific Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturing, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics4_336100.htm (accessed Dec. 5, 2024).
    \40\ See Sept. 10, 2024 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation 
Summary, available at https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ecec.htm 
(accessed Dec. 5, 2024).

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

[[Page 1920]]

    NHTSA appreciates the comments that it received that address the 
cost of the proposed rule and recognizes there may be additional costs 
associated with compliance not raised in the NPRM. At this juncture, 
with the various revisions and additions in this supplemental proposed 
rule, the agency solicits further comment on the associated costs 
before further addressing the comments it has already received on this 
issue.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of 
this information collection, including (a) whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (b) whether the Department's estimate for the burden of 
information collection is accurate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the 
heading of this document, by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section of this document to NHTSA and OMB. Although comments may be 
submitted during the entire comment period, comments received within 30 
days of publication are most useful.
    NHTSA recognizes that the collection of information contained in 
this supplemental proposed rule may be subject to revision in response 
to public comments.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' This proposed rule would amend 49 CFR part 577 to 
update the procedures by which manufacturers notify owners and 
purchasers of defects and noncompliances in an effort to improve 
vehicle safety recall completion, and does not involve any voluntary 
consensus standards as it relates to NHTSA or this rulemaking.

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, Feb. 
7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort 
to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive 
effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, 
impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification 
and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if 
any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be 
required before parties may file suit in court; (6) adequately defines 
key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA has considered these issues and 
determined that this rule does not have any retroactive or preemptive 
effect. The rule only applies to procedures by which manufacturers 
notify owners and purchasers of defects and noncompliances, with 
amendments as to how that is done prospectively. NHTSA notes further 
that there is no requirement associated with this rule that individuals 
submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative 
proceeding before they may file suit in court.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million annually. Because this rulemaking would not have a 
$100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.

I. Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking 
that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under 
E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the 
supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated 
by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject 
to E.O. 13211.

J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. You 
may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this 
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

K. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

L. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraph) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us 
with your views.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor 
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Regulatory Text

    For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 577 as follows:

PART 577-DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follows:

[[Page 1921]]

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

0
2. Amend Sec.  577.5 by:
0
a. revising the first, fifth, sixth, and eighth sentences of paragraph 
(a),;
0
b. revising the first sentence of paragraph (b);
0
c. revising paragraph (c)(2); and
0
d. revising paragraph (g)(1)(vii).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  577.5  Notification pursuant to a manufacturer's decision.

    (a) When a manufacturer of motor vehicles or replacement equipment 
determines that any motor vehicle or item of equipment produced by the 
manufacturer contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, or 
does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard, or the manufacturer files a defect or noncompliance 
information report under 49 CFR part 573, the manufacturer shall 
provide notification in accordance with Sec.  577.7(a), unless the 
manufacturer is exempted by the Administrator (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such notification. * * * Except as 
authorized by the Administrator, the manufacturer shall submit a copy 
of its proposed owner notification letter and, for recalls filed 
January 12, 2026 or later, notification by electronic means, including 
any provisions or attachments related to reimbursement, to NHTSA's 
Recall Management Division (NEF-107) through the online Manufacturers 
Recall Portal no fewer than five (5) Federal Government business days 
before it intends to begin sending the notifications to owners. The 
manufacturer shall mark the outside of each envelope in which it sends 
an owner notification letter with a notation that includes the phrase 
``URGENT SAFETY RECALL,'' all in capital letters and in a type that is 
larger than that used in the address section, and is also 
distinguishable from the other type in a manner other than size. * * * 
Except where the format of the envelope has been previously approved by 
NHTSA's Recall Management Division (NEF-107), each manufacturer must 
submit the envelope format it intends to use to that division through 
the online Manufacturers Recall Portal at least five (5) Federal 
Government business days before mailing the notification to owners. * * 
*
    (b) At the top of the notification, there must be the statement 
``URGENT SAFETY RECALL,'' in all capital letters and in a type size 
that is larger than that used in the remainder of the letter. * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) ``(Manufacturer's name or division) has decided that 
(identified motor vehicles, in the case of notification sent by a motor 
vehicle manufacturer; identified equipment, in the case of notification 
sent by a replacement equipment manufacturer) does not comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. (number and title of 
standard).''
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) A statement informing the owner that he or she may submit a 
complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; or call 
the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-
9153); or go to http://www.nhtsa.gov, if the owner believes that:
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  577.7 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and 
by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  577.7   Time and manner of notification.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor 
vehicle manufacturer, by first-class mail and by electronic means, to 
each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the 
vehicle and whose name, address, and contact information for 
notification by electronic means are reasonably ascertainable by the 
manufacturer through State records or other sources available to it. 
If, in the case of notification by electronic means, the owner cannot 
be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall notify the most 
recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. For first-class mail and 
electronic notifications, the manufacturer shall also provide 
notification to each lessee of a leased motor vehicle that is covered 
by an agreement between the manufacturer and a lessor under which the 
manufacturer is to notify lessees directly of safety-related defects 
and noncompliances.
    (ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a 
replacement equipment manufacturer--
    (A) By first-class mail and by electronic means to the most recent 
purchaser known to the manufacturer, and
    (B) (Except in the case of a tire) if decided by the Administrator 
to be required for motor vehicle safety, by public notice in such 
manner as the Administrator may require after consultation with the 
manufacturer.
    (iii) In the case of a manufacturer required to provide 
notification concerning any defective or noncomplying tire, by first-
class or certified mail and by electronic means.
    (iv) In the case of a notification to be sent by a lessor to a 
lessee of a leased motor vehicle, by first-class mail and by electronic 
means to the most recent lessee known to the lessor. Such notification 
shall be sent within ten days of the lessor's receipt of the 
notification from the vehicle manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (e) Notification by electronic means as required by paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section and as described in this paragraph (e) applies 
to recalls filed January 12, 2026 or later, and includes notification 
by any of the following: electronic mail, text message, radio or 
television notification, in-vehicle notification, social media or 
targeted online campaign, telephone call (automated or otherwise), or 
other similar electronic means.
    (1) Requirements of notification by electronic means. (i) All 
reasonable efforts shall be made to transmit notification by electronic 
means through contact information specific to each individual owner, 
purchaser, and lessee. Where any owner, purchaser, or lessee cannot be 
notified in this manner, additional notification by other electronic 
means shall be issued that is reasonably calculated to reach such 
owners, purchasers, and lessees.
    (ii) Notification by electronic means must not be inconsistent with 
the notice required under 49 U.S.C. 30119. For any chosen electronic 
means of notification, where it is practical and can be included in a 
manner consistent with this part, the notification must include an 
internet hyperlink to a notice that complies with the content 
requirements of Sec.  577.5(b) through (g), or provide an internet 
hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that complies with the 
content requirements of Sec.  577.5(b) through (g) along with 
instructions for how the owner, purchaser, or lessee can determine 
whether his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted.
    (iii) In the case of a notification by electronic means that is not 
transmitted through contact information specific to an individual 
owner, purchaser, or lessee, manufacturers who are subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  573.15 to provide recall information searchable 
by vehicle identification number (VIN) must direct people in that 
notification to NHTSA's VIN search tool or the manufacturer's VIN 
search tool.

[[Page 1922]]

    (2) Administrator discretion. The Administrator retains the 
discretion to require other electronic means and additional 
notifications if a manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does not 
feasibly reach all affected owners, purchasers, or lessees, or is 
otherwise deemed inappropriate.
    (3) Electronic recall notification plans. (i) At least once every 
five (5) years manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA's Recall Management 
Division (NEF-107), through the online Manufacturers Recall Portal, a 
plan for the notification of owners, purchasers, and lessees of recalls 
by electronic means. This plan must describe the means of electronic 
notification that the manufacturer anticipates utilizing for its 
recalls and how the manufacturer will evaluate the selection of the 
electronic means utilized for a recall, including an explanation of any 
preferences for the use of certain electronic means.
    (ii) A manufacturer's electronic recall notifications issued under 
this section must be consistent with its electronic recall notification 
plan unless the manufacturer notifies NHTSA no fewer than ten (10) 
Federal Government business days before the anticipated issuance of any 
notification by electronic means that would be inconsistent with its 
electronic recall notification plan, with an accompanying explanation 
for the inconsistency.
0
4. Amend Sec.  577.10 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  577.10   Follow-up notification.

* * * * *
    (g) A follow-up notification sent by first-class mail or by 
electronic means shall be sent in conformance with the requirements of 
Sec.  577.7 of this part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
part, the Administrator may authorize the use of other means besides 
first-class mail and electronic means for a follow-up notification.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated pursuant to 49 
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-31011 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
```