[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5291-5293]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0518]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugatuck River, Westport, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Metro-North (SAGA) Bridge, across the Saugatuck River, mile
1.1, at Westport, CT. The bridge owner, Metro-North (MNR), submitted a
request on May 5, 2022 to modify the regulation to align with the
Metro-North ``WALK'' Bridge train schedule and avoid bridge openings
during peak transit hours. It is expected that this change to the
regulations will better serve the needs of the community while
continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 27, 2023.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0518 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Stephanie E. Lopez, First Coast Guard District,
Project Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MNR Metro North
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Metro-North (SAGA) Bridge at mile 1.1, across the Saugutck
River, Westport, CT, has a vertical clearance of 13 feet at mean high
water and a horizontal clearance of 57 feet. Waterway users include
recreational and commercial vessels, including fishing vessels.
    The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.221(b).
    MNR is requesting the modification of the requirements in 33 CFR
part 117.221(b) to align with the existing requirements for the Metro-
North ``WALK'' Bridge, across the Norwalk River, at mile 0.1.
    The SAGA Bridge is located at one of the busiest rail segments in
the United States and the Northeast Corridor. Openings at the SAGA
Bridge, between the calendar years of 2019 and 2021, resulted in five
(5) delays to MNR train service. A delay due to a bridge opening has
cascading affects, resulting in multiple delayed and late trains.
Delays due to the openings of SAGA Bridge were notably high among the
drawbridges on MNR service territory. Aligning the SAGA Bridge
regulation with the WALK Bridge regulation 33

CFR 117.217(b), provides a balance between railroad operations and the
interest of waterway users.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule provides the draw to open on signal between 4:30
a.m. and 9 p.m. after at least a two-hour advance notice is given via
marine radio or telephone; except that from 5:45 through 9:45 a.m. and
from 4 through 8 p.m. From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open
on signal after at least a four-hour advance notice is given via marine
radio or telephone. A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10
minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without
stopping has entered the drawbridge lock. The reason for these changes
is to minimize train delays while balancing the needs of waterway
users.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive Orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability of
vessels to still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A.
above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0518 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
    To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being
available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous
paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the
Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online
docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all
comments received, but we will only post comments that address the
topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be
notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published of any
posting or updates to the docket.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.221 (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.221   Saugatuck River.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Metro-North ``SAGA'' bridge, mile 1.1 at
Saugatuck, shall operate as follows:
    (1) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m.
after at least a two-hour advance notice is given; except that, from
5:45 through 9:45 a.m. and from 4 through 8 p.m., Monday through Friday
excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel
traffic unless an emergency exists.
    (2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal
after at least a four-hour advance notice is given.
    (3) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur
when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered
the drawbridge lock.
    (4) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge
via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at
the bridge.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 8, 2023.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-01707 Filed 1-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73750-73751]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR22-1-000]

Petition of the Liquids Shippers Group for Expedited Order
Directing Compliance With Form No. 6 Reporting Requirements; Notice of
Petition

    Take notice that on December 14, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(5) (2021) and section 20(1)
of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. app. 20(1) (1988), the
Liquids Shippers Group \1\ (Petitioner) petitioned the Commission to
issue an order by February 18, 2022 directing every jurisdictional oil
pipeline \2\ to correctly record interstate revenues in Account Nos.
230 through 260 and to report those revenues on page 700 when
submitting its annual FERC Form No. 6 filing for 2021, and for every
year thereafter, all as more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purpose of this Petition, the LSG includes: Anadarko
Energy Services Company, Cenovus Energy Marketing Services Ltd.,
ConocoPhillips Company, Crescent Point Energy Corp., Devon Gas
Services, L.P., Marathon Oil Company, Murphy Exploration and
Production Company--USA, Ovintiv Marketing Inc., and Pioneer Natural
Resources USA, Inc.
    \2\ The term ``oil pipelines'' includes FERC-jurisdictional
crude oil, refined products, and petroleum liquids pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the

``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand
delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to
Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 13, 2022.

    Dated: December 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28204 Filed 12-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22218-22220]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0313]

Lisett Raventos: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an
order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
permanently debarring Lisett Raventos from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Lisett Raventos was
convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct that relates to the
development or approval, including the process of development or
approval, of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Ms. Raventos was given
notice of the proposed permanent debarment and was given an opportunity
to request a hearing to show why she should not be

debarred. As of December 29, 2021 (30 days after receipt of the
notice), Ms. Raventos had not responded. Ms. Raventos's failure to
respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to a
hearing concerning this action.

DATES: This order is applicable April 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of
Enforcement (ELEM-4029), Office of Strategic Planning and Operational
Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(A))
requires debarment of an individual from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or
approval, including the process of development or approval, of any drug
product under the FD&C Act. On March 5, 2021, Ms. Raventos was
convicted as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act when judgment
was entered against her in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, after her plea of guilty to one count of
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349.
    The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Ms. Raventos
was a clinical study coordinator at Unlimited Medical Research, LLC.
From about September 2013 through June 2016, Ms. Raventos conspired
with others to unlawfully enrich herself by making materially false
representations about clinical trials; fabricating data and the
participation of subjects in those clinical trials; concealing from
FDA, sponsors, and contract research organizations the fact that the
data and participation of subjects had been fabricated; and inducing
sponsors and contract research organizations to pay money for Ms.
Raventos and her co-conspirators' own benefit. Specifically, one of Ms.
Raventos's co-conspirators entered into a contract with a Contract
Research Organization (CRO), retained by a drug manufacturer (Sponsor)
to hire clinical investigators and to manage clinical trials. Ms.
Raventos's co-conspirator entered into a contract with the CRO to
conduct a clinical trial at Unlimited Medical Research site in return
for payment. The clinical trial was for an investigational drug
intended to treat pediatric asthma in children between the ages of 4
and 11 years.
    Ms. Raventos represented herself to be the Site Director, Director
of Clinical Operations, and the Study Coordinator for this clinical
trial. In those roles, Ms. Raventos was responsible for complying with
the study protocol, including administering the study drug to subjects
in the study and preparing written records, known as case histories,
which documented the participation of subjects in the clinical trial.
Ms. Raventos participated in a scheme to defraud the Sponsor by
fabricating the data and participation of subjects in the clinical
trial in a variety of ways: Ms. Raventos and her co-conspirators
falsified medical records to portray persons as legitimate study
subjects when they were not. In addition, Ms. Raventos and her co-
conspirators made it appear as though pediatric subjects made scheduled
visits to Unlimited Medical Research when they had not, made it appear
as though subjects had taken the study's drugs as required when they
had not, and made it appear that the study subjects had received checks
as payment when they had not.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Ms. Raventos by certified
mail on November 19, 2021, a notice proposing to permanently debar her
from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on
a finding, under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, that Ms.
Raventos was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
relating to the development or approval, including the process of
development or approval, of any drug product under the FD&C Act. The
proposal also offered Ms. Raventos an opportunity to request a hearing,
providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which
to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing
constituted an election not to use the opportunity for a hearing and a
waiver of any contentions concerning this action. Ms. Raventos received
the proposal on November 29, 2021. She did not request a hearing within
the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her
opportunity for a hearing and any contentions concerning her debarment
(21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Ms.
Raventos has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
relating to the development or approval, including the process of
development or approval, of any drug product under the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Ms. Raventos is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application, effective (see DATES)
(see section 306(a)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Ms. Raventos, in any capacity during her
debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Raventos provides
services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug
product application during her period of debarment, she will be subject
to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In
addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug
application from Ms. Raventos during her period of debarment, other
than in connection with an audit under section 306 of the FD&C Act
(section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Note that, for purposes of
section 306 of the FD&C Act, a ``drug product'' is defined as a drug
subject to regulation under section 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382) or under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) (section 201(dd) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
321(dd)).
    Any application by Ms. Raventos for special termination of
debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified
with Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0313 and sent to the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these
submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 11, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-08025 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58028-58029]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Open Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet on October 14 and 15, 2011. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: The meeting will take place Friday, October 14, 2011, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT; and Saturday, October 15, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the Board has
completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Emergency Training
Center, Building H, Room 300, Emmitsburg, Maryland. Members of the
public who wish to obtain details on how to gain access to the facility
and directions may contact Ruth MacPhail as listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by close of business October 12, 2011. For
information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request
special assistance, contact Ruth MacPhail as soon as possible. A
picture identification is needed for access.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Comments must be submitted in
writing no later than October 12, 2011, and must be identified by
docket ID FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket ID in the
subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Ruth MacPhail, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg,
Maryland 21727.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket ID
for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the Board, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    A public comment period will be held during the meeting on October
14, 2011, from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT, and speakers will be
afforded 5 minutes to make comments. Please note that the public
comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last
call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a
speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth MacPhail, 16825 South Seton
Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (301)
447-1173, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States
Fire Administrator, regarding the operation of the Academy and any
improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. The Board makes
interim advisories to the Administrator of FEMA, through the United
States Fire Administrator, whenever there is an indicated urgency to do
so in fulfilling its duties. In carrying out its responsibilities, the
Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs
further the basic missions which are approved by the Administrator of
FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the
adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels
for Academy programs. The Board submits an annual report through the
United States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA, in
writing. The report provides detailed comments and

recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

Agenda

    On the first day of the meeting, the Board will elect a Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson for fiscal year (FY) 2012, and will review and
approve the minutes of the July 12, 2011 meeting. The Board will review
Academy program activities, including instructor-led online course
pilot tests, current curriculum developments, and anticipated FY 2012
curriculum developments. There will be an introduction of new staff
members and the Academy will report on the revamped National
Professional Development Matrix, a standard career development
education and training model, which the Academy has modified to tie
together the various accreditation criteria, voluntary professional
standards, and higher education curricula. The modification includes
adding the National Fire Protection Association job proficiency
requirement titles and the Center for Professional Excellence
standards.
    There will be a discussion on the status of the conversion of
courses to bachelor's-degree equivalent educational outcomes by adding
the National Fire Protection Association job proficiency requirement
titles and the Center for Professional Excellence standards. The
discussion will include a review of course objectives and the outlines
for 13 courses that are being rewritten and will be added to the Fire
and Emergency Services Higher Education (FESHE) Web site. The Academy
will report on the Atlanta Fire Department and North Carolina workshops
which are being held to explain the model curricula and professional
development matrix. The status of the FESHE Institutional Recognition
and Certificate program, which is under active review by the North
American Fire Training Directors for possible revision and approval,
will be reviewed. The Academy will report on the status of Training
Resources and Data Exchange (TRADE)/FESHE Adobe Connect sessions,
including discussion of Academy-facilitated work sessions which will be
held in each of 10 FEMA regions.
    The Board will attend Annual Ethics Training, provided by FEMA's
Office of Chief Counsel, and will discuss the status of deferred
maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training
Center (NETC) campus, to include the FY 2011 Budget Request/FY 2012
Budget Planning updates, and National Fire Programs update. The Board
will review and consider reports from the Applicant Outreach
Subcommittee, FESHE/Professional Development Subcommittee, Training
Resources and Data Exchange Review Subcommittee, and Emergency Medical
Services Subcommittee.
    After discussion of these topics, there will be a public comment
period. After deliberation, the Board will recommend action to the
Superintendent of the National Fire Academy and the Administrator of
FEMA.
    On the second day of the meeting, the Board will engage in an
annual report working session. There will be no public comment period
on the second day.

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Denis G. Onieal,
Superintendent, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23992 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70269-70273]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24505]

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

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: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collections and their expected burden. The Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was published on June 27,
2016 (81 FR 41644).

DATES: Comments must be submitted to OMB on or before November 10,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Ansley, Recall Management
Division (NVS-215), Room W48-301, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
    Affected Public: Businesses or individuals.
    Abstract: The 60-day notice for this information collection
received one (1) comment submitted by Nissan North America, Inc.
(Nissan). Nissan agreed with many of the estimates presented in the 60-
day notice but did offer substantive comments on six different
estimates related to safety recall reporting and owner notification
obligations. A summary of Nissan's comments are found below in the
corresponding burden estimate along with the Agency's response.
    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.
    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 (requiring manufacturers to notify NHTSA, and provide certain
information, when they learn of a safety defect or noncompliance).
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), and 49 CFR 577.7, 577.13. They 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) and 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. They 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.
    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). They also
require the reporting to NHTSA of 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, mandates 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 more than five working days after the person to whom the tire
was sold or leased takes possession of it.
    Estimated Burden: The approved information collection associated
with 49 CFR part 573 and portions of 49 CFR part 577 presently holds an
estimated annual burden of 46,138 hours associated with an estimated
280 respondents per year. For information concerning how we calculated
these estimates please see the Federal Register Notices 78 FR 51381
(August 20, 2013).
    Our prior estimates of the number of manufacturers each year that
would be required to provide information under 49 CFR part 573, the
number of recalls for which 49 CFR part 573 information collection
requirements would need to be met, and the number of burden hours
associated with the requirements currently covered by this information
collection require adjustment as explained below.
    Based on current information, we now estimate 275 distinct
manufacturers filing an average of 854 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports
each year. This is a change from our previous estimate of 680 Part 573
Safety Recall Reports filed by 280 manufacturers each year.
    We originally estimated that it takes a manufacturer an average of
4 hours to complete each notification report to NHTSA and that
maintenance of the required owner, purchaser, dealer, and distributors
lists requires 8 hours a year per manufacturer. Nissan commented that,
in its experience, it spends ``. . . two (2) to (3) days (16-24 hours)
to complete each Defect Information Report (DIR), based on an eight (8)
hour day. This varies based on the size and complexity of the recall.''
We thank Nissan for its comment and do not disagree with its estimated
burden for filing a Part 573 Recall Report (or ``DIR'' as referenced in
Nissan's comment). However, most manufacturers who conduct safety
recalls are not major, passenger vehicle manufacturers. And, generally,
most other manufacturers include very few products in the average
safety recall. We presume that, like Nissan, other major, passenger
vehicle manufacturers require similar time and burden to prepare and
file their reports due to the size and complexity of passenger vehicle
recalls. As such, we estimate that major, passenger vehicle
manufacturers will require 20 burden hours, the average of Nissan's
estimate, to prepare and file their Part 573 Recall Reports.
    By utilizing the metric associated with NHTSA's VIN Look-up Tool
regulation (See 49 CFR 573.15), we will associate a higher burden hour
estimate for the major, passenger vehicle manufacturers who produce
more than 25,000 vehicles annually. The seventeen (17) manufacturers
that fit this annual production criterion recall many more products, on
average, than other manufacturers. Between 2013 and 2015, the recalls
for these major, passenger vehicle manufacturers (including Nissan)
affected an average of 153,000 vehicles per recall. However, the
recalls for all other manufacturers (including manufacturers for other
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment such as tires, child seats, etc.),
affected an average of 32,000 products per recall. Between 2013 and
2015 the major, passenger vehicle manufacturers conducted an average of
45 recalls annually.
    We estimate the annual burden hours related to the reporting to
NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance for the seventeen major,
passenger vehicle manufacturers to be 900 hours annually (45 notices x
20 hours/report). We estimate all other manufacturers to require a
total of 3,236 hours annually to file their notices (809 notices x 4
hours/report). Accordingly, the estimated annual burden hours related
to the reporting to NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance is 6,336
hours (900 hours + 3,236 hours) + (275 MFRs x 8 hours to maintain
purchaser lists).
    We also estimated an additional 2 hours would be needed to add to a
manufacturer's Part 573 Safety Recall Report details 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. Nissan commented that, in its
experience and depending on the complexity of the recall, it
``typically works up to five (5) business days/forty (40) hours to
craft the Dealer announcement with the appropriate repair protocol and
other essential information to provide to dealers. The announcement
creation includes coordinating with multiple departments in order to
notify and instruct the dealers/retailers on how to execute the
remedy.'' Similar to the burden hour estimate for readying the Part 573
Recall Report, we believe Nissan's estimate is realistic and should
apply to the burden hour calculation for the major, passenger vehicle
manufacturers. We believe, however, that most other manufacturers would
require up to two hours readying this notification. This burden is now
estimated at 3,418 hours annually (809 notices x 2 hours/notification +
45 notices x 40 hours/notification).
    49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires vehicle manufacturers to provide to the
Agency copies of all communications regarding defects and
noncompliances sent to owners, purchasers, and dealerships.
Manufactures 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 estimate this burden requires 30
minutes for each vehicle recall. This would total to an estimated 380
hours annually (760 vehicle recalls x .5 hours). Nissan commented that
they agreed with the Agency's estimate for this burden.

    In the event a manufacturer supplied the defect 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 roughly
80 equipment recalls per year needs to be adjusted to 95 equipment
recalls per year to better reflect recent recall figures. Although the
distributors are not technically under any regulatory requirement 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 1,425 hours per year (95 recalls x 3 distributors x 5
hours). We received no comments on this particular burden estimate.
    As for the burden linked with a manufacturer's preparation of and
notification concerning its reimbursement for pre-notification
remedies, we estimated that the preparation of a reimbursement plan
takes approximately 8 hours annually, and that an additional 2 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.
    Nissan commented that this requirement actually requires additional
burden hours from various departments within the company. Nissan
estimates that its Consumer Affairs department must maintain and update
a reimbursement Web site which requires $24,000 annually. Further,
updates to this Web site take approximately four (4) hours to complete,
presumably per recall (but this is not clarified). Another twelve (12)
annual hours are required to ``. . . . disseminate internal documents
to Consumer Affairs staff . . .'' Nissan's Field Quality Assurance and
Technical Compliance departments also spend a combined four and a half
(4.5) hours, per recall, creating the reimbursement plan and adding
specific language to the owner notification letter.
    We thank Nissan for its detailed burden estimate for this
requirement. Regarding the Web site that Nissan operates for managing
reimbursement submissions, this is not a current burden imposed by the
regulation in 49 CFR 577.11. Manufacturers must disseminate
reimbursement information to owners through the owner notification
letter and provide owners a physical mailing address to submit any
claims in writing. Manufacturers are not required to create or maintain
a Web site for facilitating this pre-notification remedy requirement.
As such, we will not include the $24,000 annual maintenance costs
related to Nissan's Web site or the four (4) hours spent on updating
the Web site.
    However, we do agree with Nissan regarding the four and a half
(4.5) hours required to create the reimbursement plan and tailor the
plan to each specific recall. We previously estimated a combined total
of 10 hours for these items but we will use Nissan's estimate going
forward. Also, we will add an additional 12 hours annually, as Nissan
estimates, for each manufacturer to disseminate pre-notification
reimbursement to their company staff.
    In sum, these required activities total 4,827 annual burden hours
((275 MFRs x 4 hours to prepare plan) + (854 recalls x .5 hours
tailoring plan for each recall) + (275 MFRs x 12 hours to disseminate
plan information)).
    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 now estimate that the Agency administers 12 tire
recalls each year, on average, revised down from our previous estimate
of 15 tire recall each year. We 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 x 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 estimate 24 burden hours a year will be spent
complying with the tire recall campaign requirements found in 49 CFR
573.6(c)(9).
    Additionally, because the agency has yet to receive a single report
of a defective or noncompliant tire being intentionally sold or leased,
our previous estimate of zero burden hours remains unchanged with this
notice. We received no comments regarding the burden estimates for tire
disposal requirements or tire recall campaign requirements.
    The previous clearance for this information collection allowed for
start-up costs for the Agency's VIN Look-up system and a new regulation
that required manufacturers to create a VIN Look-up service on their
respective Web sites. As these systems were launched successfully in
August 2014, the start-up estimates for costs and burden will now be
removed. The estimated costs to industry for one-time infrastructure
expenses to create a VIN-based recalls lookup service consisting of 108
hours, and costing a total of $45,000, will now be removed from this
information collection.
    Each manufacturer was also required to establish requirements,
analysis, and designs for their new recalls look-up tools. These
additional burdens stemmed from: The creation of the VIN search
interface; database setup to host the recall information; data refresh
procedures to populate recall information; server side VIN code lookup
and recall status retrieval; integration with existing manufacturer Web
site; and application testing. We estimated these burdens to total
1,332 hours and $130,005 and these costs will now be removed from this
information collection.
    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 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 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 estimate these burdens will total 1,800 hours
each year (9 MFRs x 200 hours). We estimate the recurring costs of
these burden hours will be $30,000 per manufacturer.\1\ 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 x $30,000).
Nissan commented that they agreed with this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ $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 previously estimated one-time startup costs that
manufacturers would assume in order to meet certain technical access
requirements to provide recall information to NHTSA's Web site. We
estimated that the total one-time costs to the industry from these
technical access requirements would require 1,914 burden hours (27 MFRs
x 72 hours) and total $189,270 (27 MFRs x $7,010) and we now remove
these costs from this information collection.
    The Agency previously estimated one-time startup costs
manufacturers incurred to create a VIN list for 15 years of recall
information. We estimated that the total one-time costs to the industry
from this VIN list creation would require 1,620 hours (27 MFRs x 60
hours). We remove these costs from this information collection.
    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 calculate 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 x 2 recalls x 52 weeks x 8 MFRs + 1 hour x 8 recalls x
52 weeks x 19 MFRs) to support the requirement to update the recalls
completion status of each VIN in a recall at least weekly for 15 years.
We received no comments on this estimate.
    As the number of Part 573 Recall Reports has increased in recent
years, so has the number of quarterly reports which track the
completion of safety recalls. Our previous estimate of 3,000 quarterly
reports received annually is now revised up to an average of 3,800
reports annually. Nissan commented that they spend an average of ten
(10) minutes per quarterly report where we previously estimated 4 hours
per report. We believe Nissan's estimate of 10 minutes is much more
realistic as this process is likely automated through electronic
reporting. As such, we will adopt Nissan's estimate of 10 minutes
burden to gather the pertinent information for each quarterly report.
    Nissan further estimated that it requires one (1) additional hour
each quarter to electronically submit all quarterly reports (for up to
30 recalls in a given quarter) totaling another four (4) burden hours
annually. As noted before, the major, passenger vehicle manufacturers
often conduct more recalls affecting more vehicles and this can
increase the quarterly reporting burden for those manufacturers. We
will include an additional four (4) burden hours for the seventeen
major, passenger vehicle manufacturers. The quarterly reporting burden
now totals 701 hours ((3,800 quarterly reports x 10 minutes/report) +
(17 MFRs x 4 hours for electronic submission)).
    NHTSA's last update to this information collection established a
new online recalls portal for the submission of recall documents. 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 550 hours annually
(2 hours x 275 MFRs). Nissan commented that they agree with this
estimate.
    Also updated in the last revision to this information collection,
NHTSA established a requirement that manufactures change or update
recall components in their Part 573 Safety Recall Report. We continue
to estimate that 20 percent of Part 573 reports will involve a change
or addition. We originally estimated that this burden would require an
additional 30 minutes per amended report. Nissan commented that this
task requires up to one (1) hour per amended report. We believe
Nissan's estimate of one hour is reasonable and we will adopt this
estimated burden calculation. At one hour per amended report, this
totals 171 burden hours per year (854 recalls x .20 = 171 recalls; 171
x 1 = 171 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 x 2 hours). We received
no comments on this particular estimate.
    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
6,832 burden hours annually (8 hours per recall x 854 recalls per
year). Nissan commented that they agree with the Agency's estimate for
this burden calculation.
    The estimate associated with the regulation which requires owner
notifications within 60 days of filing a Part 573 Safety Recall Report
remains must similarly be revised with an increase in recalls. We
previously calculated that about 25 percent of past recalls did not
include an owner notification mailing within 60 days of the filing of
the Part 573 Safety Recall Report. However, recent trends show that
only about 10 percent of recalls require an interim owner notification
mailing. Under the regulation, manufacturers must send two letters in
these cases: An interim notification of the defect or noncompliance
within 60 days and a supplemental letter notifying owners and
purchasers of the available remedy.
    We originally estimated these interim letters would require 8
burden hours per recall (similar to the standard owner notification
letters). However, Nissan commented that preparation of the interim
letter can require up to ten (10) hours if the letter is complex in
nature.

We believe Nissan's estimate of 10 hours is reasonable and we will
adopt this estimate burden calculation. Accordingly, we estimate that
850 burden hours are associated with this 60-day interim notification
requirement (854 recalls x .10 = 85 recalls; 85 recalls times 10 hours
per recall = 850 hours).
    As for costs associated with notifying owners and purchasers of
recalls, we continue to estimate this costs $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 third-party 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 58.4 million letters are mailed yearly totaling $87,600,000
($1.50 per letter x 58,400,000 letters). The requirement in 49 CFR part
577 for a manufacturer to notify their affected customers within 60
days would add an additional $8,760,000 (58,400,000 letters x .10
requiring interim owner notifications = 5,840,000 letters; 5,840,000 x
$1.50 = $8,760,000). In total we estimate that the current 49 CFR part
577 requirements cost manufacturers a total of $96,360,000 annually
($87,600,000 owner notification letters + $8,760,000 interim
notification letters = $96,360,000). Nissan commented that they agree
with the Agency's estimate for this cost estimate.
    Due to the past burdens associated with the requirement that
certain vehicle manufacturers setup VIN Look-up systems for their
recalled vehicles, many estimates have been removed from this
information collection as these burdens and costs have already
occurred. The 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements found in
today's notice will require 36,070 hours each year for OMB Control
Number 2127-0004, a decrease of 10,068 burden hours from the previously
approved collection of 46,138 hours. Additionally, manufacturers
impacted by 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements will incur
a recurring annual cost estimated at $96,630,000 total.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: NHTSA receives reports of defect
or noncompliance from roughly 275 manufacturers per year. Accordingly,
we estimate that there will be approximately 275 manufacturers per year
filing defect or noncompliance reports and completing the other
information collection responsibilities associated with those filings.
    In summary, we estimate that there will be a total of 275
respondents per year associated with OMB No. 2127-0004.

    Issued on: October 4, 2016.
Michael L. Brown,
Acting Director, Office of Defects Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2016-24505 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P