Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45941 

expected burdens. The Federal Register 

notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on the following 

collections of information was 

published on June 19, 2017 (82 FR 

27958). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 1, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tia 

Swain, Office of Administration, 

Management Planning Division, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 

TAD–10, Washington, DC 20590 (202) 

366–0354 or tia.swain@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13, Section 2, 

109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised 

at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, require Federal agencies to issue 

two notices seeking public comment on 

information collection activities before 

OMB may approve paperwork packages. 

44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 

1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On June 19, 2017, 

published a 60-day notice (82 FR 27958) 

in the Federal Register soliciting 

comments on the ICR that the agency 

was seeking OMB approval. FTA 

received no comments after issuing this 

60-day notice. Accordingly, DOT 

announces that these information 

collection activities have been reevaluated and certified under 5 CFR 

1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for 

review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12(c). 

Before OMB decides whether to 

approve these proposed collections of 

information, it must provide 30 days for 

public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 

CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires 

OMB to approve or disapprove 

paperwork packages between 30 and 60 

days after the 30 day notice is 

published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)–(c); 5 CFR 

1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, 

Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 

day notice informs the regulated 

community to file relevant comments 

and affords the agency adequate time to 

digest public comments before it 

renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 

29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should 

submit their respective comments to 

OMB within 30 days of publication to 

best ensure having their full effect. 5 

CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 FR 44983, 

Aug. 29, 1995. 

The summaries below describe the 

nature of the information collection 

requirements (ICRs) and the expected 

burden. The requirements are being 

submitted for clearance by OMB as 

required by the PRA. 

Title: Survey of FTA Stakeholders. 

OMB Control Number: 2132–0564. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: Executive Order 12862, 

‘‘Streamlining Service Delivery and 

Improving Customer Service,’’ requires 

FTA to identify its stakeholders and 

address how the agency will provide 

services in a manner that seeks to 

streamline service delivery and improve 

the experience of its customers. The 

survey covered in this request will 

provide FTA with a means to gather 

data directly from its stakeholders in an 

efficient, timely manner, in accordance 

with the Administration’s commitment 

to improving service delivery. By 

qualitative feedback FTA means 

information that provides useful 

insights on perceptions and opinions, 

but the information requests are not 

statistical surveys that yield quantitative 

results generalizable to the population 

of interest. The information obtained 

from the survey will provide insights 

into customer or stakeholder 

perceptions, experiences and 

expectations, provide an early warning 

of issues with service, or focus attention 

on areas where communication, training 

or changes in operations might improve 

delivery of products or services. These 

collections will allow for ongoing, 

collaborative and actionable 

communications between FTA and its 

customers and stakeholders. The survey 

will be limited to data collections that 

solicit voluntary opinions and will not 

involve information that is required by 

regulations. 

Annual Estimated Total Burden 

Hours: 1,188 hours. 

ADDRESSES: All written comments must 

refer to the docket number that appears 

at the top of this document and be 

submitted to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725—17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: FTA Desk Officer. 

Alternatively, comments may be sent 

via email to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget, at the 

following address: oira_submissions@

omb.eop.gov. 

Comments are Invited On: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 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. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

William Hyre, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21051 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2016– 

0065] 

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Request for comment on the 

renewal of collection of information. 

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can 

collect certain information from the 

public, it must receive approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Under procedures established 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must solicit public 

comment on proposed collections of 

information, including extensions and 

reinstatement of previously approved 

collections. 

This document describes a collection 

of information for which NHTSA 

intends to seek OMB approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 1, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

using any of the following methods. All 

comments must have the applicable 

DOT docket number (i.e., NHTSA– 

2016–0065) noted conspicuously on 

them. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45942 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

1See ‘‘Notice of Coordinated Remedy Program 

Proceeding for the Replacement of Certain Takata 

Air Bag Inflator,’’ available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2015-0055. 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Telephone: 1–800–647–5527. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this proposed collection of 

information. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act heading 

below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http://

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to comments 

received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, or for background 

documents, contact Stephen Hench, 

Office of Chief Counsel (NCC–0100), 

Room W41–229, NHTSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: 202–366–2992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

approval, it must first publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

providing a 60-day comment period and 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

each proposed collection of information. 

The OMB has promulgated regulations 

describing what must be included in 

such a document. Under OMB’s 

regulation, see 5 CFR 1320.8(d), an 

agency must ask for public comment on 

the following: 

(i) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(ii) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(iii) how to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(iv) how to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

In compliance with these 

requirements, NHTSA asks for public 

comments on the following collection of 

information: 

Title: Defect and Noncompliance 

Reporting and Notification. 

Type of Request: Renewal of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0004. 

Affected Public: Businesses or 

individuals. 

Abstract: This notice requests 

comment on NHTSA’s proposed 

renewal to approved collection of 

information OMB No. 2127–0004. This 

collection covers the information 

collection requirements found within 

various statutory sections in the Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act), 49 

U.S.C. 30101, et seq., that address and 

require manufacturer notifications to 

NHTSA of safety-related defects and 

failures to comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in 

motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment, as well as the provision of 

particular information related to the 

ensuing owner and dealers notifications 

and free remedy campaigns that follow 

those notifications. The sections of the 

Act imposing these requirements 

include 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30119, 30120, 

and 30166. Many of these requirements 

are implemented through, and 

addressed with more specificity in, 49 

CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports (Part 573) and 49 CFR 577, 

Defect and Noncompliance Notification 

(Part 577). 

Pursuant to the Act, motor vehicle 

and motor vehicle equipment 

manufacturers are obligated to notify, 

and then provide various information 

and documents to, NHTSA in the event 

a safety defect or noncompliance with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) is identified in products they 

manufactured. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) 

and 49 CFR 573.6. Manufacturers are 

further required to notify owners, 

purchasers, dealers, and distributors 

about the safety defect or 

noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), 

30120(a); 49 CFR 577.7, 577.13. 

Manufacturers are required to provide to 

NHTSA copies of communications 

pertaining to recall campaigns that they 

issue to owners, purchasers, dealers, 

and distributors. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(f); 

49 CFR 573.6(c)(10). 

Manufacturers are also required to file 

with NHTSA a plan explaining how 

they intend to reimburse owners and 

purchasers who paid to have their 

products remedied before being notified 

of the safety defect or noncompliance, 

and explain that plan in the 

notifications they issue to owners and 

purchasers about the safety defect or 

noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) 

and 49 CFR 573.13. Manufacturers are 

further required to keep lists of the 

respective owners, purchasers, dealers, 

distributors, lessors, and lessees of the 

products determined to be defective or 

noncompliant and involved in a recall 

campaign, and are required to provide 

NHTSA with a minimum of six 

quarterly reports reporting on the 

progress of their recall campaigns. See 

49 CFR 573.8 and 573.7, respectively. 

In addition, in an enforcement action, 

certain manufacturers may be required 

by administrative order to conduct 

supplemental recall communications 

utilizing non-traditional means (e.g., 

text messaging, social media) crucial to 

achieving completion of a unique, largescale recall. Presently, NHTSA is 

overseeing recalls of unprecedented 

complexity involving Takata air bag 

inflators, where it has required such 

supplemental owner communications.1

NHTSA specifically seeks comment on 

its estimates of the supplemental recall 

communications associated with the 

Takata recalls. 

The Act and Part 573 also contain 

numerous information collection 

requirements specific to tire recall and 

remedy campaigns. These requirements 

relate to the proper disposal of recalled 

tires, including a requirement that the 

manufacturer conducting the tire recall 

submit a plan and provide specific 

instructions to certain persons (such as 

dealers and distributors) addressing that 

disposal, and a requirement that those 

persons report back to the manufacturer 

certain deviations from the plan. See 49 

U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9). 

The regulations also require that 

manufacturers report to NHTSA 

intentional and knowing sales or leases 

of defective or noncompliant tires. 

49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its 

implementing regulation found at 49 

CFR 573.10 mandate that anyone who 

knowingly and willfully sells or leases 

for use on a motor vehicle a defective 

tire or a tire that is not compliant with 

FMVSS, and with actual knowledge that 

the tire manufacturer has notified its 

dealers of the defect or noncompliance 

as required under the Act, is required to 

report that sale or lease to NHTSA no 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45943 

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

3For more information about how we derived 

these and certain other estimates please see 81 FR 

70269 (October 11, 2016). 

more than five working days after the 

person to whom the tire was sold or 

leased takes possession of it. 

Estimated Burden: The existing 

information collection associated with 

49 CFR part 573 and portions of 49 CFR 

part 577 currently has an estimated 

annual burden of 36,070 hours 

associated with an estimated 275 

respondents per year.2 Our prior 

estimates of the burden hours and cost 

associated with the requirements 

currently covered by this information 

collection require adjustment as follows. 

Based on current information, we 

estimate 274 distinct manufacturers 

filing an average of 963 Part 573 Safety 

Recall Reports each year. This is a 

change from our previous estimate of 

854 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports filed 

by 275 manufacturers each year. In 

addition, with reference to the metric 

associated with NHTSA’s VIN Look-up 

Tool regulation, see 49 CFR 573.15, we 

continue to estimate it takes the 17 

major passenger-vehicle manufacturers 

(that produce more than 25,000 vehicles 

annually) more burden hours to 

complete these Reports to NHTSA. See 

81 FR 70270 (October 11, 2016). 

Between 2014 and 2016, the major 

passenger-vehicle manufacturers 

conducted an average of 299 recalls 

annually. 

We continue to estimate that 

maintenance of the required owner, 

purchaser, dealer, and distributors lists 

requires 8 hours a year per 

manufacturer. We also continue 

estimate it takes a major passengervehicle manufacturer 20 hours to 

complete each notification report to 

NHTSA, and it takes all other 

manufacturers 4 hours. Accordingly, we 

estimate the annual burden hours 

related to the reporting to NHTSA of a 

safety defect or noncompliance for the 

17 major passenger vehiclemanufacturers to be 5,980 hours 

annually (299 notices × 20 hours/ 

report), and that all other manufacturers 

require a total of 2,656 hours annually 

(664 notices × 4 hours/report) to file 

their notices. Accordingly, the estimated 

annual burden hours related to the 

reporting to NHTSA of a safety defect or 

noncompliance is 10,828 hours (5,980 

hours + 2,656 hours) + (274 MFRs × 8 

hours to maintain purchaser lists).3

We continue to estimate that an 

additional 40 hours will be needed to 

account for major passenger-vehicle 

manufacturers adding details to Part 573 

Safety Recall Reports relating to the 

intended schedule for notifying its 

dealers and distributors, and tailoring 

its notifications to dealers and 

distributors in accordance with the 

requirements of 49 CFR 577.13. An 

additional 2 hours will be needed to 

account for this obligation in other 

manufacturers’ Safety Recall Reports. 

This burden is estimated at 13,288 

hours annually (664 notices × 2 hours/ 

notification) + (299 notices × 40 hours/ 

notification). 

49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires 

manufacturers to provide to the Agency 

copies of all communications regarding 

defects and noncompliances sent to 

owners, purchasers, and dealerships. 

Manufacturers must index these 

communications by the year, make, and 

model of the vehicle as well as provide 

a concise summary of the subject of the 

communication. We continue to 

estimate this burden requires 30 

minutes for each vehicle recall. This 

totals an estimated 482 hours annually 

(963 recalls × .5 hours). 

In the event a manufacturer supplied 

the defective or noncompliant product 

to independent dealers through 

independent distributors, that 

manufacturer is required to include in 

its notifications to those distributors an 

instruction that the distributors are to 

then provide copies of the 

manufacturer’s notification of the defect 

or noncompliance to all known 

distributors or retail outlets further 

down the distribution chain within five 

working days. See 49 CFR 

577.7(c)(2)(iv). As a practical matter, 

this requirement would only apply to 

equipment manufacturers since vehicle 

manufacturers generally sell and lease 

vehicles through a dealer network, and 

not through independent distributors. 

We believe our previous estimate of 95 

equipment recalls per year needs to be 

adjusted to 87 equipment recalls per 

year to better reflect recent data. 

Although distributors are not required 

to follow that instruction, we expect 

that they will, and have estimated the 

burden associated with these 

notifications (identifying retail outlets, 

making copies of the manufacturer’s 

notice, and mailing) to be 5 hours per 

recall campaign. Assuming an average 

of 3 distributors per equipment item, 

(which is a liberal estimate given that 

many equipment manufacturers do not 

use independent distributors) the total 

number of burden hours associated with 

this third-party notification burden is 

approximately 1,305 hours per year (87 

recalls × 3 distributors × 5 hours). 

As for the burden linked with a 

manufacturer’s preparation of and 

notification concerning its 

reimbursement for pre-notification 

remedies, we continue to estimate that 

the preparation of a reimbursement plan 

takes approximately 4 hours annually, 

an additional .5 hours per year is spent 

tailoring the plan to particular defect 

and noncompliance notifications to 

NHTSA and adding tailored language 

about the plan to a particular safety 

recall’s owner notification letters, and 

an additional 12 hours annually is spent 

disseminating plan information, for a 

total 4,866 annual burden hours ((274 

MFRs × 4 hours to prepare plan) + (963 

recalls × .5 hours tailoring plan for each 

recall) + (274 MFRs × 12 hours to 

disseminate plan information)). For 

more information about how we 

calculated these estimates please see the 

Federal Register Notices 81 FR 70269 

(October 11, 2016). 

The Safety Act and 49 CFR part 573 

also contain numerous information 

collection requirements specific to tire 

recall and remedy campaigns, as well as 

a statutory and regulatory reporting 

requirement that anyone who 

knowingly and intentionally sells or 

leases a defective or noncompliant tire 

notify NHTSA of that activity. 

Manufacturers are required to include 

specific information related to tire 

disposal in the notifications they 

provide NHTSA concerning 

identification of a safety defect or 

noncompliance with FMVSS in their 

tires, as well as in the notifications they 

issue to their dealers or other tire outlets 

participating in the recall campaign. See 

49 CFR 573.6(c)(9). We continue to 

estimate that the agency administers 12 

tire recalls each year, on average. We 

continue to estimate that the inclusion 

of this additional information will 

require an additional two hours of effort 

beyond the subtotal above associated 

with non-tire recall campaigns. This 

additional effort consists of one hour for 

the NHTSA notification and one hour 

for the dealer notification for a total of 

24 burden hours (12 tire recalls a year 

× 2 hours per recall). 

Manufacturer-owned or controlled 

dealers are required to notify the 

manufacturer and provide certain 

information should they deviate from 

the manufacturer’s disposal plan. 

Consistent with our previous analysis, 

we continue to ascribe zero burden 

hours to this requirement since to date 

no such reports have been provided and 

our original expectation that dealers 

would comply with manufacturers’ 

plans has proven true. 

Accordingly, we continue to estimate 

24 burden hours a year will be spent 

complying with the tire recall campaign 

requirements found in 49 CFR 

573.6(c)(9). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45944 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

4 $8,000 (for data center hosting for the physical 

server) + $12,000 (for system and database 

administrator support) + $10,000 (for web/ 

application developer support) = $30,000. 

The agency recently received one 

report under 49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its 

implementing regulation at 49 CFR 

573.10 of a defective or noncompliant 

tire being intentionally sold or leased, 

so our previous estimate of zero burden 

hours for this regulatory requirement is 

being revised. The agency estimates 1 

burden hour annually will be spent 

preparing and submitting such reports. 

We continue to believe nine vehicle 

manufacturers, who did not operate 

VIN-based recalls lookup systems prior 

to August 2013, incur certain recurring 

burdens on an annual basis. We 

continue to estimate that 100 burden 

hours will be spent on system and 

database administrator support. These 

100 burden hours include: Backup data 

management and monitoring; database 

management, updates, and log 

management; and data transfer, 

archiving, quality assurance, and 

cleanup procedures. We continue to 

estimate another 100 burden hours will 

be incurred on web/application 

developer support. These burdens 

include: Operating system and security 

patch management; application/web 

server management; and application 

server system and log files management. 

We continue to estimate these burdens 

will total 1,800 hours each year (9 MFRs 

× 200 hours). We continue to estimate 

the recurring costs of these burden 

hours will be $30,000 per 

manufacturer.4 We continue to estimate 

that the total cost to the industry from 

these recurring expenses will total 

$270,000, on an annual basis (9 MFRs 

× $30,000). 

Changes to 49 CFR part 573 in 2013 

required 27 manufacturers to update 

each recalled vehicle’s repair status no 

less than every 7 days, for 15 years from 

the date the VIN is known to be 

included in the recall. This ongoing 

requirement to update the status of a 

VIN for 15 years continues to add a 

recurring burden on top of the one-time 

burden to implement and operate these 

online search tools. We continue to 

estimate that 8 affected motorcycle 

manufacturers will make recalled VINs 

available for an average of 2 recalls each 

year and 19 affected passenger-vehicle 

manufacturers will make recalled VINs 

available for an average of 8 recalls each 

year. We believe it will take no more 

than 1 hour, and potentially much less 

with automated systems, to update the 

VIN status of vehicles that have been 

remedied under the manufacturer’s 

remedy program. We continue to 

estimate this will require 8,736 burden 

hours per year (1 hour × 2 recalls × 52 

weeks × 8 MFRs + 1 hour × 8 recalls × 

52 weeks × 19 MFRs) to support the 

requirement to update the recalls 

completion status of each VIN in a recall 

at least weekly for 15 years. 

As the number of Part 573 Recall 

Reports has increased in recent years, so 

has the number of quarterly reports that 

track the completion of safety recalls. 

Our previous estimate of 3,800 quarterly 

reports received annually is now revised 

upwards to 4,498 quarter reports 

received annually. We continue to 

estimate it takes manufacturers 10 

minutes to gather the pertinent 

information for each quarterly report, 

and 4 additional hours for the 17 major 

passenger-vehicle manufacturers. We 

therefore now estimate that the 

quarterly reporting burden pursuant to 

Part 573 totals 818 hours ((4,498 

quarterly reports × 10 minutes/report) + 

(17 MFRs × 4 hours for electronic 

submission)). 

We continue to estimate a small 

burden of 2 hours annually in order to 

set up a manufacturer’s online recalls 

portal account with the pertinent 

contact information and maintaining/ 

updating their account information as 

needed. We estimate this will require a 

total of 548 hours annually (2 hours × 

274 MFRs). 

We continue to estimate that 20 

percent of Part 573 reports will involve 

a change or addition regarding recall 

components, and that at one hour per 

amended report, this totals 193 burden 

hours per year (963 recalls × .20 = 193 

recalls; 193 × 1 = 193 hours). 

As to the requirement that 

manufacturers notify NHTSA in the 

event of a bankruptcy, we expect this 

notification to take an estimated 2 hours 

to draft and submit to NHTSA. We 

continue to estimate that only 10 

manufacturers might submit such a 

notice to NHTSA each year, so we 

calculate the total burden at 20 hours 

(10 MFRs × 2 hours). 

We continue to estimate that it takes 

manufacturers an average of 8 hours to 

draft their notification letters, submit 

them to NHTSA for review, and then 

finalize them for mailing to their 

affected owners and purchasers. We 

estimate that the 49 CFR part 577 

requirements result in 7,704 burden 

hours annually (8 hours per recall × 963 

recalls per year). 

The burden estimate associated with 

the regulation that requires interim 

owner notifications within 60 days of 

filing a Part 573 Safety Recall Report 

must be revised upward. We previously 

calculated that about 10 percent of past 

recalls require an interim notification 

mailing, but recent trends show that 12 

percent of recalls require an interim 

owner notification mailing. We continue 

to estimate the preparation of an interim 

notification can take up to 10 hours. We 

therefore estimate that 1160 burden 

hours are associated with the 60-day 

interim notification requirement (963 

recalls × .12 = 116 recalls; 116 recalls 

times 10 hours per recall = 1160 hours). 

As for costs associated with notifying 

owners and purchasers of recalls, we 

continue to estimate a cost of $1.50 per 

first class mail notification, on average. 

This cost estimate includes the costs of 

printing, mailing, as well as the costs 

vehicle manufacturers may pay to thirdparty vendors to acquire the names and 

addresses of the current registered 

owners from state and territory 

departments of motor vehicles. In 

reviewing recent recall figures, we 

determined that an estimated 75.8 

million letters are mailed yearly totaling 

$113,700,000 ($1.50 per letter × 

75,800,000 letters). The requirement in 

49 CFR part 577 for a manufacturer to 

notify their affected customers within 

60 days would add an additional 

$13,644,000 (75,800,000 letters × .12 

requiring interim owner notifications = 

9,096,000 letters; 9,096,000 × $1.50 = 

$13,644,000). In total, we estimate that 

the current 49 CFR part 577 

requirements cost manufacturers a total 

of $127,344,000 annually ($113,700,000 

for owner notification letters + 

$13,644,000 for interim notification 

letters = $127,344,000). 

NHTSA further has authority to 

require that, in an enforcement action, 

vehicle manufacturers conduct 

supplemental recall communications, 

potentially utilizing non-traditional 

means (e.g., text messaging, social 

media). This is currently occurring in 

the Takata recalls, which involve 19 

vehicle manufacturers and over 46 

million defective inflators currently 

under recall in approximately 34 

million vehicles that need to be recalled 

as quickly as possible, given that 

thirteen people in the United States 

have lost their lives to a rupturing 

Takata inflator, and more than two 

hundred people have reported 

associated injuries, many of which were 

disfiguring or life-threatening. The 

scope of the Takata recall has been 

unprecedented in the agency’s history. 

Therefore, the below analysis only takes 

into account the expected paperwork 

burden of this collection over the next 

three years, without making any 

assumptions about the likelihood of 

another large-scale recall that leads to 

similar types of supplementary notices. 

However, the agency believes the 

lessons learned from the Takata recall 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45945 

5See, e.g., GM Safety Recalls: Innovations in 

Customer Outreach (NHTSA Retooling Recalls 

Workshop, April 28, 2015) (recognizing efficacy of 

various methods of owner engagement, and citing 

customer recognition of GM’s ‘‘persistence’’ through 

multiple postcards and letters ‘‘seal[ing] the deal’’ 

for customer to seek timely recall remedy); Auto 

Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings (November 

2015), at 16 (observing dealers ‘‘[t]ry multiple 

attempts and methods [phone, email, mail] to 

contact customer’’ when trying to increase recall 

repair rates). 

6See, e.g., GM Safety Recalls, supra; Auto 

Alliance & NADA Survey Key Findings, supra; GM 

letter to NHTSA in comment to ANPRM, Docket 

No. NHTSA–2016–0001 (March 23, 2016), at 2 

(‘‘The best approach is to leverage multiple 

communication channels and, where possible, 

capture and use the customer’s preferred method of 

communication. In those cases where consumers 

perceive non-repair to be low-risk, a ‘‘saturation’’ 

approach is sometimes effective. This approach 

increases the frequency of contact and alternates the 

means of communication.’’); see also Susanne 

Schmidt & Martin Eisend, Advertising Repetition: A 

Meta-Analysis on Effective Frequency in 

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

(observing findings ‘‘clearly support the 

repetitionists’ view in the literature over the 

minimalists’ view: few exposures are not enough to 

achieve maximum response, but repetition is 

essential for consumer response’’); id. at 426 

(observing further that ‘‘many exposures in realworld settings are not completed (i.e. the consumer 

does not read/watch/listen to an ad message in its 

entirety), and higher exposure rates are necessary to 

reach optimum response’’—accordingly, the study’s 

figures even ‘‘might understate the optimum 

exposure level needed in a real-world setting’’); 

Blair Entenmann, Marketing Help!, The Principles 

of Targeted Direct Mail Advertising (2007) (‘‘Timing 

may be a critical success factor—today they aren’t 

interested, but next month they might be. 

Repetition will generate a better response.’’); Chuck 

Flantroy, Direct Mail Works: The Power of 

Frequency, Kessler Creative (August 31, 2016), 

available at http://www.kesslercreative.com/ 

marketing-tips-tricks/direct-mail-works-the-powerof-frequency/ (observing that ‘‘[a] huge factor to take 

into account is the timing of . . . mailing(s). Even 

if your first mailing falls on deaf ears, your second 

or third may come at just the perfect time when a 

recipient of your campaign is in need of your 

products or services’’). 

will provide a useful guidepost in 

structuring any similar future action. 

To address the scope and complexity 

of the Takata recall, NHTSA issued a 

Coordinated Remedy Order, as amended 

on December 9, 2016 (the ‘‘ACRO’’), 

which requires affected vehicle 

manufacturers to conduct supplemental 

owner notification efforts in 

coordination with NHTSA and the 

Independent Monitor of Takata. On 

December 23, 2016, the Monitor, in 

consultation with NHTSA, issued 

Coordinated Communications 

Recommendations for vehicle owner 

outreach (‘‘CCRs’’), which includes a 

recommendation that vehicle 

manufacturers provide at least one form 

of consumer outreach per month for 

vehicles in a launched recall campaign 

(i.e., a recall where parts are available) 

until the vehicle is remedied (unless 

otherwise accounted for as scrapped, 

stolen, exported, or otherwise 

unreachable under certain procedures in 

the ACRO). See CCRs ¶1(b); ACRO 

¶¶45–46. The Monitor also 

recommended that manufacturers 

utilize at least three non-traditional 

means of communication (postcards; 

email; telephone calls; text message; 

social media) as part of their overall 

outreach strategy. See CCRs ¶1(a). And 

the Monitor recommended including in 

these communications certain content, 

including certain safety-risk 

information. See id. ¶2. If a vehicle 

manufacturer does not wish to follow 

the Monitor’s recommendations, the 

ACRO permits the manufacturer to 

propose an alternative communication 

strategy to NHTSA and the Monitor. 

The Monitor’s recommendations were 

adopted in significant part because 

research supports that frequent 

notifications using non-traditional 

means result in improved remedy 

completion.5 The agency invites any 

additional feedback on the effectiveness 

of such outreach in future enforcement 

actions, as well as the paperwork 

burden associated with conducting that 

outreach. 

To date, vehicle manufacturers and 

others have agreed that greater 

notification frequency is preferred over 

less.6 However, the agency is aware of 

generalized concerns about ‘‘notification 

fatigue’’ and invites comment on this 

phenomenon, including the optimal 

frequency, content, mode, and method 

of recall/defects notifications from 

manufacturers to consumers. The 

agency is also particularly interested 

any research or data that relates to a 

recall with potential consequences of 

death or severe injury, as in the case of 

the Takata recalls. NHTSA also seeks 

comment on the content and language to 

include in these notifications, including 

relevant safety-risk information, to 

increase the likelihood that consumers 

remedy the issue as soon as possible. 

NHTSA estimates a yearly average of 

19 manufacturers will be issuing 

monthly supplemental communications 

over the next three years pursuant to the 

ACRO and the CCRs. Manufacturers 

may satisfy the CCRs through thirdparty vendors (which have been utilized 

by many manufacturers), in-house 

strategies, or some combination thereof. 

NHTSA estimates the cost for 

supplemental communications at $0.44 

per VIN per month. 

The volume of outreach required by 

the ACRO and the CCRs (and the costs 

associated with that outreach) is a 

function of the number of unrepaired 

vehicles that are in a launched 

campaign and are not otherwise 

accounted for as scrapped, stolen, 

exported, or otherwise unreachable. The 

schedule in Paragraph 35 of the ACRO 

delineates the expected remedy 

completion rate, by quarter, of vehicles 

in a launched remedy campaign. 

Utilizing these variables, we estimate 

an initial annualized cost over the next 

three years of $43,557,722 per year. 

However, NHTSA anticipates that 

recent settlement agreements in the 

Southern District of Florida multidistrict litigation (MDL) governing 

economic-loss actions against five 

manufacturer defendants will discount 

this figure based on outreach efforts 

those defendants (Toyota, Subaru, 

Nissan, BMW, Mazda, and Honda) are 

required to conduct pursuant to their 

respective settlements. See generally In 

re: Takata Airbag Products Liab. Litig., 

14-cv-24009, MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.). 

These outreach programs are to utilize 

non-traditional methods of outreach, 

including telephone, email, social 

media, and text messaging, and NHTSA 

anticipates they will produce outreach 

that would satisfy the minimum 

requirements of the CCRs. In calculating 

the estimated burden the relevant 

manufacturers would have incurred 

under the same methodology described 

above, NHTSA is discounting the 

annualized cost contemplated by the 

ACRO and the CCRs by $15,721,393. 

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the 

terms of ACRO and the CCRs, assuming 

remedy-completion rates consistent 

with those prescribed in the former, 

contemplate an annualized cost of 

$27,836,329 per year for the next three 

years (2018–2020). In addition, NHTSA 

estimates that manufacturers will take 

an average of 2 hours each month 

drafting or customizing supplemental 

recall communications utilizing nontraditional means, submitting them to 

NHTSA for review, and finalizing them 

to send to affected owners and 

purchasers. NHTSA therefore estimates 

that 456 burden hours annually are 

associated with issuing these 

supplemental recall communications: 

12 months × 2 hours per month × 19 

manufacturers = 456 hours. 

Because of the forgoing burden 

estimates, we are revising the burden 

estimate associated with this collection. 

The 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part 

577 requirements found in today’s 

notice will require 51,773 hours each 

year. Additionally, manufacturers 

impacted by 49 CFR part 573 and 49 

CFR part 577 requirements will incur a 

recurring annual cost estimated at 

$127,614,000 total. The burden estimate 

in this collection contemplated for 

conducting supplemental recall 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45946 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

communications under administrative 

order to achieve completion of the 

Takata recalls is 456 hours each year. 

Additionally, that administrative order 

contemplates impacted manufacturers 

incurring an annual cost estimated at 

$27,836,329. Therefore, in total, we 

estimate the burden associated with this 

collection to be 52,229 hours each year, 

with a recurring annual cost estimated 

at $155,450,329. 

Estimated Number of Respondents— 

NHTSA estimates that there will be 

approximately 274 manufacturers per 

year filing defect or noncompliance 

reports and completing the other 

information collection responsibilities 

associated with those filings. NHTSA 

estimates there will be an average of 19 

manufacturers each year conducting 

supplemental nontraditional monthly 

outreach pursuant to administrative 

order in an enforcement action 

associated with the Takata recall. 

Jeffrey Giuseppe, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21053 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0016] 

Pipeline Safety: Underground Natural 

Gas Storage Facility Annual Report 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of OMB approval. 

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety 

(OPS) is announcing OMB approval of 

the annual report for Underground 

Natural Gas Storage Facilities. 

DATES: Operators should submit the first 

annual report form for the 2017 calendar 

year by March 15, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Stewart, Program Analyst, Office 

of Pipeline Safety Operations Systems 

Division, at 202–366–1524 or by email 

at crystal.stewart@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA 

regulations at 49 CFR 191.17 require 

each operator of an underground natural 

gas storage facility to submit an annual 

report on DOT PHMSA Form 7100.4–1 

by March 15, for the preceding calendar 

year, except that the first annual report 

must be submitted by July 18, 2017. 

PHMSA extended the due date for the 

submission of the first annual report, as 

stipulated in PHMSA’s posting on its 

Web page (https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ 

underground-storage-annual-reportsubmission-extension). This annual 

report, originally required by July 18, 

2017, would have captured data for the 

2016 calendar year. PHMSA is revising 

the date of the first submission of the 

annual report. The first annual report 

now will be due on March 15, 2018, and 

will collect reported information for the 

2017 calendar year. 

OPS will post this information and 

further filing instructions on OPS’s Web 

site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ 

pipeline. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

26, 2017, under authority delegated in 49 

CFR 1.97. 

Alan K. Mayberry, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21004 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

based on OFAC’s determination that one 

or more applicable legal criteria were 

satisfied. All property and interests in 

property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of 

these persons are blocked, and U.S. 

persons are generally prohibited from 

engaging in transactions with them. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Associate Director for Global 

Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance & 

Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; or the Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of the General 

Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel 

(Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202–622– 

2410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The Specially Designated Nationals 

and Blocked Persons List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s Web 

site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Action(s) 

On September 26, 2017, OFAC 

determined that the property and 

interests in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction of the following persons are 

blocked pursuant to the relevant 

sanctions authorities listed below. 

Dealings in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction in which a person identified 

as Government of North Korea has an 

interest are prohibited effective as of the 

date of that status, which may be earlier 

than the date of OFAC’s determination. 

Individuals 

1. KWAK, Chong-chol (a.k.a. KWAK, 

Jong-chol), Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates; DOB 01 Jan 1975; nationality 

Korea, North; Gender Male; Passport 

563220533 (Korea, North) (individual) 

[DPRK4]. 

Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) 

of Executive Order 13810 of September 

20, 2017, ‘‘Imposing Additional 

Sanctions With Respect to North Korea’’ 

(Executive Order 13810) for operating in 

the financial services industry in North 

Korea. 

2. RYOM, Hui-bong (a.k.a. RYO’M, 

Hu’i-pong), Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates; DOB 18 Sep 1961; nationality 

Korea, North; Gender Male; Passport 

745120026 (Korea, North) (individual) 

[DPRK4]. 

Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) 

of Executive Order 13810 for operating 

in the financial services industry in 

North Korea. 

3. PAK, Mun Il (a.k.a. PAK, Mun-il), 

Yanji, China; DOB 01 Jan 1965; 

nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; 

Passport 563335509 expires 27 Aug 

2018; Korea Daesong Bank official 

(individual) [DPRK4]. 

Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) 

of Executive Order 13810 for operating 

in the financial services industry in 

North Korea. 

4. HO, Yong Il (a.k.a. HO’, Yo’ng-il), 

Dandong, China; DOB 09 Sep 1968 

(individual) [DPRK4]. 

Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) 

of Executive Order 13810 for operating 

in the financial services industry in 

North Korea. 

5. KANG, Min, Beijing, China; DOB 

07 May 1980; nationality Korea, North; 

Gender Male; Passport 563132918 

expires 04 Feb 2018; Korea Daesong 

Bank representative (individual) 

[DPRK4]. 

Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) 

of Executive Order 13810 for operating 

in the financial services industry in 

North Korea. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES