NHTSA Response_Questions-Answers NOFO 693JJ920R000060_State Notification.pdf

NOFO #693JJ920R000060

State Notification to Consumers of Motor Vehicle Recall Status Q&A Cost

NHTSA RESPONSE

Question Number

NOFO Question NHTSA Response

1 In Section D.2., the applicant must explain how the recall data will be integrated into the registration process and system.

The grant also states, “A State is free to propose a process to make use of the functionality that may exist through its inspection stations or other intersections between the State and the consumer’s vehicle.”

Texas has a unique vehicle inspection and registration program called “Two Steps One Sticker.” This program requires a passing vehicle inspection to obtain or renew vehicle registration. Texans receive a vehicle inspection report (VIR) in lieu of an inspection sticker, and the vehicle registration sticker serves as both a registration and inspection sticker.

Question: In our application, the vehicle recall data will be integrated into the VIR and provided to vehicle owner / lessor at time of safety inspection. Will this approach be acceptable under the terms of the grant?

The goal of the grant is to notify owners of all registered vehicles. NHTSA will consider all applications that provide and detail a States’ plan to best meet that goal.

2 Question: Is there a specific Grant Application template recommended for use by NHTSA for this grant opportunity?

No. Please reference the SF-424A and SF-424B forms.

3 Question: Will the “apply” button option and “opportunity package” be available for this grant on Grants.gov? We saw that they were not currently available online for this grant.

Please reference and follow the instructions provided in Section D.6, “Other Submission Requirements” of the

NOFO.

4 In section F.3 Reporting, the Grant language states “for each motor vehicle registered, the Grant Recipient will be required to provide the date presented for registration”. Texas captures the registration county and mm/yyyy on registration decals, however the inspection can be completed up to 90 days prior to registration renewal. We will not have the date of the new registration expiration or confirmation of registration. We are only providing open recall information at time of inspection.

Question: Is this an acceptable approach?

provide and detail a States’ plan to best meet that goal.

5 Question: Related to Section D.9 of Grant Posting, How important is it to have resumes for staff members? How deep do we need to go with staff org chart?

6a.

Texas is fully committed to implementing a program to get Vehicle Inspection Safety Recall information into the hands of Consumer at time of Vehicle Safety Inspection. However, the point-in-time transaction processes we intended to implement will make it very hard to fulfill Grant reporting requirements.

Question: Is there any room for flexibility?

6b.

An option Texas is considering could use a recall search tool like https://www.carfax.com/recall/ to validate the effectiveness of our Vehicle Inspection Safety Recall program.

Are there any concerns or comments with this possible approach?

provide and detail a States’ plan to best meet that goal.

6 Section D.3 states “…single application through the department or office of the State that is responsible for motor vehicle registration.”

Question: The Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas is not responsible for motor vehicle registration, but is responsible for Vehicle Safety Inspections, which is required for the majority of Texas vehicle registrations. Will this be acceptable?

provide and detail a States’ plan to best meet that goal.

7 My question was regarding the requirements of the grant to provide recall data to all registrants of motor vehicles in Florida.

The goal of the grant is to notify owners of all registered vehicles. NHTSA will consider all applications that provide and detail a States’ plan to best meet that goal.

https://www.carfax.com/recall/

Florida is unique in that our county Tax Collectors’ offices deliver many driver license and motor vehicle services on behalf of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV). Our Tax Collectors manage the delivery and cost of registration renewal mailings; this is not central to our State Agency.

In exploring this grant opportunity, FLSHMV would like to notify customers of open recalls through email (as the total grant amount would not cover the cost of mailing to all of our affected customers--approximately 3.4 million open recalls).

However, we do not have email addresses for all of our customers at this time.

We are in the process of developing an updated online portal, and this portal will allow the growth of our email database, as we foresee our customers using this as a convenient alternative to in-office services. We could use this database to notify customers of open recall information. Email notifications would increase as email addresses were added to the database.

Would NHTSA consider a grant if the ability to send a mail notification to all recall customers was not an option; would using the current/growing email database suffice (and other touchpoints other than email/regular mail) for applying for this grant?

8 As noted in the grant package posting on grants.gov:

"NHTSA is also interested in proposals that provide an analysis of recall completion data on an ongoing basis to

Please reference Section C, “Eligibility Information” of the

NOFO.

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrants.gov%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cm.ricketts-evans%40dot.gov%7C43d0d850e9aa491f6fe908d816083d2b%7Cc4cd245b44f04395a1aa3848d258f78b%7C0%7C0%7C637283571929564323&sdata=noUT4fVuXQ2yu%2FiL2Xi6WvpA8KOPIkm7bAdvnKQVbjQ%3D&reserved=0 assist in program evaluation, or assessment of owners’ attitudes toward a particular recall notification protocol. In particular, NHTSA is interested in ways for a State to identify the motor vehicles that were remedied following notification of an open recall by the State. NHTSA looks forward to reviewing resourceful approaches that will motivate owners to remedy open recalls.”

May I complete an application package to be enveloped into your project as a specific public utility?

Does that fit the scope of this project?

My company qualifies for the grants under your project because the pending is a public utility so I would like to ask some basic questions as to the scope of your project. This employs millions from rural areas. I have the blessing of Nancy Pelosi and she took the liberty to forward this mass employment case to Representative David Schweikert, here in AZ’s 6th.

Having a realtime solution to the needs of many locations at once, would a pending revenue generation system be allowed to employ millions? Could you team this potential with a division or even another company that has answers but struggles with logistics in the rural regions of the country? If we employ millions, brands can just ride along with us, right? Unemployment insurance is failing the country miserably.

The IP as defined has no purpose other than public in ownership, use, and profit. The employment is thought to be for the locale, but the use of other locations makes all masses local. We pay sponsors nothing and they pay us nothing. It is all brand commitment that a brand makes to a community. If ads are made, they are what the public makes. Everything the public makes is for a reason. The unity of purpose allows for the scale mentioned here.

Democracy is capitalism in the open. "I want to pay a lot of taxes, I want to make a lot of money,” is how the average person feels. By removing any tax cheating thoughts by removing tax liability, employees may contribute at will. But you throw a bunch of IRS 1099 forms at gig workers and they will stop working, again and again. The employee must be invested.

All location device use allows for no personal data or definition, we are a group. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is the platform that shifts. The use of devices without fear from data scrapers or some listing app like Facebook is the only way to pay millions just for showing

up. We are connecting without reliance on GPS or the devise. That is the IP. It is cool. More need, more demand for pay checks. As it turns out, the people getting paid may wish to employ the group into personal talents and excel. So, we just pay everyone involved.

The people can do all of the uniting themselves. How and what they support may be larger than any locale may be able to handle, can we just say that all masses are local and avoid the scaling question all together?

Is employing millions in the ‘scope' of your project?

Can we just skip HR?