47740 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) Developing list prices. Price lists 

may be developed using one or more of 

the following sources: 

* * * * * 

(d) First time use for an item or 

service. The first time the contracting 

officer uses list prices for an item or 

service, give prospective bidders an 

opportunity to review the proposed list. 

Also provide information on how GSA 

will use the list prices. This information 

may be provided in a draft solicitation. 

(e) * * *. Prices may be used from 

previous awards made using the weight 

factors method to develop price lists. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * *. If the Government’s needs 

cannot be estimated, the solicitation 

may include past orders. * * * 

(i) * * * 

(6) If providing quantity estimates, 

state that the estimates are for 

information only and do not constitute 

guarantees or commitments to order 

items under the contract. 

* * * * * 

(8) When the solicitation further 

groups unit prices by trade or business 

category, multiple percentages may be 

required. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Revise section 514.407–3 to read 

as follows: 

514.407–3 Other mistakes disclosed 

before award. 

Delegation of authority by head of the 

agency. Under FAR 14.407–3(e), 

contracting directors (see 502.101) are 

authorized, without power of 

redelegation, to make: 

(a) The determinations regarding 

corrections and withdrawals under FAR 

14.407–3(a), (b), and (c); and 

(b) The corollary determinations not 

to permit withdrawal or correction 

under FAR 14.407–3(d). 

■ 15. Revise section 514.407–4 to read 

as follows: 

514.407–4 Mistakes after award. 

The contracting director and assigned 

counsel are required to review and 

approve the contracting officer’s 

determinations under FAR 14.407–4(b) 

and (c). 

PART 552—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 16. Revise the section heading, date of 

the provision and paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of section 552.214–70; and remove 

Alternate I. 

■ The revised text reads as follows: 

552.214–70 ‘‘All or None’’ Bids. 

* * * * * 

‘‘ALL OR NONE’’ BIDS (Oct 2009) 

(a) The Government reserves the right to 

evaluate bids and make awards on an ‘‘all or 

none’’ basis as provided below. 

(b) A bid submitted on an ‘‘all or none’’ or 

similar basis will be evaluated as follows: 

The lowest acceptable bid exclusive of the 

‘‘all or none’’ bid will be selected with 

respect to each item (or group of items when 

the solicitation provides for aggregate 

awards) and the total cost of all items thus 

determined shall be compared with the total 

of the lowest acceptable ‘‘all or none’’ bid. 

Award will be made to result in the lowest 

total cost to the Government. 

■ 17. Amend section 552.214–71 by 

revising the date of the clause, 

paragraph (a)(1), the introductory text of 

paragraph (a)(2), and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

552.214–71 Progressive Awards and 

Monthly Quantity Allocations. 

* * * * * 

PROGRESSIVE AWARDS AND MONTHLY 

QUANTITY ALLOCATIONS (Oct 2009) 

(a) Monthly quantity allocation. 

(1) Set forth below are the Government’s 

estimated annual and monthly requirements 

for each stock item covered by this 

solicitation. Bids shall indicate, in the spaces 

provided, the monthly quantity which the 

bidder is willing to furnish of any item or 

group of items involving the use of the same 

production facilities. In making monthly 

allocations, bidders are urged to group as 

many items as possible. Such groupings will 

make it possible for the Government to make 

fullest use of the production capabilities of 

each bidder. 

(2) Bidders need not limit their monthly 

allocations to the Government’s estimated 

monthly requirements, since additional 

unanticipated needs may occur during the 

period of the contract. If a bid does not 

include monthly allocation quantities, it will 

be deemed to offer to furnish all of the 

Government’s requirements, even though 

they may exceed the stated estimated 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Progressive awards. If the low 

responsive bid’s monthly quantity allocation 

is less than the Government’s estimated 

requirements, the Government may make 

progressive awards beginning with the low 

responsive bid and including each next low 

responsive bid to the extent necessary to 

meet the estimated requirements. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend section 552.214–72 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the provision; 

■ b. Revising the ‘‘Note’’ in paragraph 

(b); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (e). 

■ The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

552.214–72 Bid Sample Requirements. 

* * * * * 

BID SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS (Oct 2009) 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

NOTE: Bidders that propose to furnish an 

item or group of items from more than one 

manufacturer or production point must 

submit two samples from the production of 

each manufacturer or production point. 

* * * * * 

(e) Contracting Officer insert address. 

llllllllllllllll 

llllllllllllllll 

llllllllllllllll 

[FR Doc. E9–22209 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 573 and 579 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0169; Notice 2] 

RIN 2127–AK28 

Early Warning Reporting Regulations 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends certain 

provisions of the early warning 

reporting (EWR) rule published 

pursuant to the Transportation Recall 

Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act and adds 

requirements for information identifying 

products involved in a recall under 49 

CFR part 573 Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. This rule modifies the 

threshold for submitting quarterly EWR 

reports for light vehicle, bus, mediumheavy vehicle (excluding emergency 

vehicles), motorcycle and trailer 

manufacturers. It further requires 

manufacturers submitting EWR reports 

to submit product names that are 

consistent from reporting quarter to 

quarter and amends the definition of 

‘‘other safety campaign.’’ It also amends 

part 573 Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports to add 

requirements that tire manufacturers 

provide a range of tire identification 

numbers of recalled tires and 

manufacturers provide the country of 

origin of a component involved in a 

recall. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this final rule is October 19, 2009. 

Compliance Date: Compliance by bus 

manufacturers producing 100 or more 

but fewer than 500 buses annually is not 

required until September 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47741 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, Fourth 

Floor, Washington, DC 20590. The 

petition will be placed in the docket. 

Anyone is able to search the electronic 

form of all documents 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, contact Tina Morgan, 

Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA 

(phone: 202–366–0699). For legal issues, 

contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of 

Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone: 202– 

366–5263). You may send mail to these 

officials at National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Background 

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule 

B. Defect and Noncompliance Information 

Reports 

C. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

D. Overview of Public Comments to the 

Proposed Rule 

E. Differences Between the Proposed Rule 

and the Final Rule 

IV. Discussion 

A. Statutory Background on Early Warning 

and Notification Requirements 

B. Matters Considered in Setting 

Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting 

C. Light Vehicles 

D. Trailers 

E. Buses 

F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles 

G. Motorcycles 

H. Response to the National Truck 

Equipment Association Petition for 

Rulemaking 

I. Data Consistency 

J. Correction to the Definition of Other 

Safety Campaign 

K. Lead Time 

L. Amendments to Information Required to 

be Submitted in a Part 573 Defect or 

Noncompliance Information Reports 

1. Amendment to Subsection 

573.6(c)(2)(iii) 

2. Amendment to Section 49 CFR 573.9 

3. Amendment to Subsection 

573.6(c)(2)(iv) 

V. Privacy Act Statement 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Introduction 

In 2000, Congress enacted the 

Transportation Recall Enhancement, 

Accountability, and Documentation 

(TREAD) Act. Public Law 106–414. Up 

until the TREAD Act’s enactment, 

NHTSA relied primarily on analyses of 

complaints from consumers and 

technical service bulletins (TSBs) from 

manufacturers to identify safety defects 

in motor vehicles and equipment. 

Congress concluded that NHTSA did 

not have access to data that may provide 

an earlier warning of safety defects. 

Accordingly, the TREAD Act included 

requirements that NHTSA prescribe 

rules requiring motor vehicle and 

equipment manufacturers to submit to 

NHTSA communications relating to 

defective equipment, information about 

foreign safety recalls and establishing 

early warning reporting requirements. 

Responding to the TREAD Act 

requirements in 2002, NHTSA issued 

rules requiring that motor vehicle and 

equipment manufacturers provide 

communications regarding defective 

equipment, information on foreign 

safety recalls and certain early warning 

data. 49 CFR part 579; see 67 FR 45822; 

67 FR 63295. The rules require: 

• Monthly reporting of manufacturer 

communications (e.g., notices to 

distributors or vehicle owners, customer 

satisfaction campaign letters, etc.) 

concerning defective equipment or 

repair or replacement of equipment; 

• Reporting (within five days of a 

determination to take such an action) of 

information concerning foreign safety 

recalls and other safety campaigns in 

foreign countries; and 

• Quarterly reporting of early warning 

information: production information; 

information on incidents involving 

death or injury; aggregate data on 

property damage claims, consumer 

complaints, warranty claims, and field 

reports; and copies of field reports 

(other than dealer reports) involving 

specified vehicle components, a fire, or 

a rollover. 

We use the term ‘‘Early Warning 

Reporting’’ (EWR) here to apply to the 

requirements in the third category 

above, which are found at 49 CFR part 

579, subpart C. As described more fully 

in the Background section, below, the 

requirements vary somewhat depending 

on the nature of the reporting entity 

(motor vehicle manufacturers, child 

restraint system manufacturers, tire 

manufacturers, and other equipment 

manufacturers) and the annual 

production of the entity. All of the EWR 

information NHTSA receives is stored 

in a database called ARTEMIS (which 

stands for Advanced Retrieval, Tire, 

Equipment, and Motor Vehicle 

Information System), which also 

contains additional information (e.g., 

recall details and complaints filed 

directly by consumers) related to defects 

and investigations. 

The Early Warning Division of the 

Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) 

reviews and analyzes a huge volume of 

manufacturer early warning data and 

documents. Using its traditional sources 

of information, such as complaints from 

vehicle owner questionnaires (VOQs) 

and manufacturers’ own 

communications, and the additional 

information provided by EWR 

submissions, ODI investigates potential 

safety defects. These investigations 

often result in recalls. In 2008, for 

example, manufacturers recalled more 

than 8 million vehicles for defective 

conditions. The majority of the vehicles 

recalled were from recalls prompted by 

ODI investigations. 

The TREAD Act requires that NHTSA 

periodically review its EWR rules. 49 

U.S.C. 30166(m)(5). In previous EWR 

rulemakings, the agency indicated that 

we would begin a review of the EWR 

rule after two full years of reporting 

experience. See 67 FR 45822 (July 10, 

2002) and 69 FR 3292 (January 23, 

2004). When two full years of reporting 

concluded in 2006, NHTSA began its 

review of the EWR rule. 

NHTSA evaluated the EWR rule in 

two phases. NHTSA completed phase 

one in 2007 and, after notice and 

comment, published a final rule on May 

29, 2007. 72 FR 29435. The May 2007 

final rule made three changes to the 

EWR rule. First, the agency eliminated 

the requirement to produce hard copies 

of a subset of field reports known as 

‘‘product evaluation reports.’’ See 72 FR 

29435, 29443. Second, the rule amended 

the definition of ‘‘fire’’ to more 

accurately capture fire related events. 

Id. Last, the agency limited the time that 

manufacturers must update missing 

vehicle identification number (VIN)/tire 

identification number (TIN) or a 

component in death or injury incidents 

to a period of no more than one year 

after NHTSA receives the initial report. 

72 FR 29444. 

On December 5, 2008, the agency 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

containing the second part of our 

evaluation of the EWR rule. This final 

rule amends the EWR rule based upon 

that evaluation. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

The early warning reporting rule 

requires that certain manufacturers of 

motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment submit information to 

NHTSA that could assist in the 

identification of safety-related defects. 

49 CFR part 579, subpart C. The amount 

and frequency of reporting required of a 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47742 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1For instance, light vehicle manufacturers must 

provide reports on twenty vehicle components or 

systems: steering, suspension, service brake, 

parking brake, engine and engine cooling system, 

fuel system, power train, electrical system, exterior 

lighting, visibility, air bags, seat belts, structure, 

latch, vehicle speed control, tires, wheels, seats, fire 

and rollover. 

In addition to the systems and components 

reported by light vehicle manufacturers, mediumheavy vehicle and bus manufactures must report on 

the following systems or components: service brake 

system air, fuel system diesel, fuel system other and 

trailer hitch. 

Motorcycle manufacturers report on thirteen 

systems or components: steering, suspension, 

service brake system, engine and engine cooling 

system, fuel system, power train, electrical, exterior 

lighting, structure, vehicle speed control, tires, 

wheels and fire. 

Trailer manufacturers report on twelve systems or 

components: suspension, service brake systemhydraulic, service brake system-air, parking brake, 

electrical system, exterior lighting, structure, latch, 

tires, wheels, trailer hitch and fire. 

Child restraint and tire manufacturers report on 

fewer systems or components for the calendar year 

of the report and four previous model years. Child 

restraint manufacturers must report on four systems 

or components: buckle and restraint harness, seat 

shell, handle and base. Tire manufacturers must 

report on four systems or components: tread, 

sidewall, bead and other. 

manufacturer is dependent upon its 

annual production volume. 

Manufacturers of light vehicles, 

motorcycles, or trailers producing 500 

or more units per year must submit 

quarterly reports. Manufacturers of light 

vehicles, motorcycles or trailers 

producing fewer than 500 units 

annually do not submit quarterly 

reports. Instead these smaller 

manufacturers are required to report to 

NHTSA when they receive a claim or 

notice identifying an incident that 

involves a death. 49 CFR 579.27. 

Today’s final rule raises the EWR 

quarterly reporting threshold for light 

vehicle manufacturers, motorcycle 

manufacturers and trailer manufacturers 

from 500 or more units to 5,000 or more 

units per year. Light vehicle, motorcycle 

and trailer manufacturers producing 

fewer than 5,000 units per year will now 

have to submit only information related 

to incidents involving fatalities. 

Prior to today’s rule, the EWR 

regulation required that medium-heavy 

vehicle and bus manufacturers 

producing 500 or more units per year 

submit EWR reports. Manufacturers 

whose production volume is below this 

threshold are required to submit 

information only on incidents involving 

a fatality. With two exceptions, today’s 

final rule raises the EWR quarterly 

reporting threshold to an annual 

production of 5,000 or more vehicles. 

However, manufacturers of emergency 

vehicles producing 500 or more units 

per year must still file quarterly reports. 

For buses, the threshold is reduced to 

100 or more buses produced annually. 

Today’s final rule also adds a new 

requirement requiring vehicle and 

equipment manufacturers to provide 

consistent naming conventions for their 

products from quarter to quarter. 

Last, today’s final rule amends two 

subsections of 49 CFR 573.6 to add 

language stating that tire manufacturers’ 

recall reports include the tire 

identification number (TIN) of all tires 

within the scope of a recall and that all 

Part 573 Defect or Noncompliance 

Information Reports identify a recalled 

component’s country of origin. 

Specifically, we are amending 49 CFR 

573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require a range of TINs 

and 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to identify the 

recalled component’s country of origin. 

III. Background 

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule 

On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published 

a rule implementing the early warning 

reporting provisions of the TREAD Act. 

67 FR 45822. This EWR regulation 

divides manufacturers of motor vehicles 

and motor vehicle equipment into two 

groups with different reporting 

responsibilities. The first group consists 

of (a) larger vehicle manufacturers 

(manufacturers of 500 or more vehicles 

annually) producing light vehicles, 

medium-heavy vehicles and buses, 

trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) tire 

manufacturers producing over a certain 

number per tire line; and (c) all 

manufacturers of child restraints. The 

first group must submit comprehensive 

reports every calendar quarter. 49 CFR 

579.21–26. The second group consists of 

smaller vehicle manufacturers (e.g., 

manufacturers of fewer than 500 

vehicles annually) and all motor vehicle 

equipment manufacturers other than 

those in the first group. The second 

group has limited reporting 

responsibility. 49 CFR 579.27. 

Manufacturers in the first group must 

submit comprehensive quarterly reports 

for each make and model for the 

calendar year of the report and nine 

previous model years. Tire and child 

restraint manufacturers must transmit 

comprehensive reports for the calendar 

year of the report and four previous 

production years. Each report is 

subdivided so that the information on 

each make and model is provided by 

specified vehicle systems and 

components. The vehicle systems or 

components involved vary depending 

upon the type of vehicle or equipment 

manufactured.1

In general (not all of these 

requirements apply to manufacturers of 

child restraints or tires), manufacturers 

that submit comprehensive reports must 

report information on: 

• Production (the cumulative total of 

vehicles or items of equipment 

manufactured in the year). 

• Incidents involving death or injury 

based on claims and notices received by 

the manufacturer. 

• Claims relating to property damage 

received by the manufacturer. 

• Warranty claims paid by the 

manufacturer pursuant to a warranty 

program (in the tire industry these are 

warranty adjustment claims). 

• Consumer complaints (a 

communication by a consumer to the 

manufacturer that expresses 

dissatisfaction with the manufacturer’s 

product or performance of its product or 

an alleged defect). 

• Field reports (a report prepared by 

an employee or representative of the 

manufacturer concerning the failure, 

malfunction, lack of durability or other 

performance problem of a motor vehicle 

or item of motor vehicle equipment). 

The reporting information on property 

damage claims, warranty claims, 

consumer complaints and field reports 

is in the form of numerical tallies, by 

specified system and component. These 

data are referred to as aggregate data. 

Reports on deaths or injuries contain 

specified data elements. In addition, 

manufacturers that submit 

comprehensive reports, other than tire 

manufacturers, are required to submit 

copies of non-dealer field reports. 

In contrast to the comprehensive 

quarterly reports required of the first 

group, the second group does not have 

to provide quarterly reports. These 

manufacturers must only submit death 

incident information when they receive 

a claim or notice of a fatality. 

B. Defect and Noncompliance 

Information Reports 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

30119, a manufacturer is required to 

notify the Secretary if the manufacturer 

determines that a motor vehicle or item 

of motor vehicle equipment contains a 

defect related to motor vehicle safety or 

does not comply with an applicable 

motor vehicle safety standard. 49 CFR 

part 573 Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports details the 

information required to be reported to 

NHTSA when a manufacturer 

determines that a defect or 

noncompliance with a Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard exists in a 

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment. 

Section 573.6 specifies the 

information that manufacturers are 

required to submit to the agency. An 

important element of the notice to 

NHTSA is the identification of the 

component containing the defect or 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47743 

noncompliance. Section 573.6(c)(2)(iii) 

requires manufacturers to identify items 

of motor vehicle equipment by the 

component’s generic name (tires, child 

seating system, axles, etc.), part number, 

size and function if applicable, the 

inclusive dates (month and year) of 

manufacturer if available and any other 

necessary information describing the 

items. Section 573.6(c)(2)(iv) requires 

manufacturers to identify the 

manufacturer of the component that 

contains the defect or noncompliance if 

the component was manufactured by a 

manufacturer different from the 

reporting manufacturer. In such a case, 

the reporting manufacturer must 

identify the component and the 

component’s manufacturer by name, 

business address, and business 

telephone number. 

C. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The December 5, 2008 NPRM 

proposed to raise the EWR quarterly 

reporting threshold for light vehicle 

manufacturers and trailer manufacturers 

from 500 to 5,000 or more vehicles per 

year. Those light vehicle and trailer 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

5,000 units per year would submit 

information on incidents involving a 

death under section 579.27. We also 

proposed to eliminate the reporting 

threshold for bus manufacturers, which 

would require all bus manufacturers to 

provide comprehensive quarterly EWR 

reports. The proposal left the quarterly 

reporting threshold for medium-heavy 

vehicle manufacturers and motorcycles 

unchanged at 500 or more vehicles per 

year. 

The NPRM also responded to the 

National Truck Equipment Association’s 

(NTEA) petition for rulemaking. NTEA 

petitioned the agency to undertake a 

rulemaking to raise the threshold for all 

vehicle manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 

units per year or, alternatively, sought to 

exempt final stage manufacturers from 

quarterly EWR reporting. The agency 

did not propose amendments as 

requested by NTEA, but requested 

comments on our decision to keep the 

threshold for quarterly EWR reports for 

medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 

unchanged. 

The agency proposed to add new 

provisions requiring vehicle and 

equipment manufacturers to use 

consistent quarter to quarter product 

naming conventions or provide NHTSA 

with timely notice of any changes, and 

to require light vehicle manufacturers to 

include the vehicle type in the aggregate 

portion of their quarterly EWR reports. 

Additionally, we proposed to add 

electronic stability control as a 

component to the light vehicle reporting 

category and require that manufacturers 

specify fuel and/or propulsion systems 

when providing model designations to 

capture new technologies in the light 

vehicle market. 

Finally, we proposed to amend two 

subsections of section 573.6. 

Specifically, we proposed to amend 

573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require tire 

manufacturers to report tire 

identification numbers (TINs) of 

recalled tires and 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to 

require manufacturers to identify the 

country of origin of a recalled 

component that is the subject of a recall. 

We also proposed to add language to 

section 573.9 to facilitate the 

submission of reports affected by the 

proposal to require TINs. 

D. Overview of Public Comments to the 

Proposed Rule 

We received comments from several 

sources in response to the NPRM. Motor 

vehicle manufacturers and associated 

trade organizations commenting 

included the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (Alliance), Association of 

International Automobile Manufacturers 

(AIAM), Ford Motor Company (Ford), 

Truck Trailer Manufacturers 

Association (TTMA), Jayco, Inc. (Jayco), 

Big-Tex Trailer Manufacturing (BigTex), PJ Trailer Manufacturing (PJ 

Trailer), Motor & Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (MEMA), 

National Truck Equipment Associated 

(NTEA), Rubber Manufacturers 

Association (RMA), Recreation Vehicle 

Industry Association (RVIA), National 

Association of Trailer Manufacturers 

(NATM), National Marine 

Manufacturers Association (NMMA), 

and Carry-On Trailer Corporation 

(Carry-On). In general, the industry 

commenters supported the proposals to 

raise the reporting threshold for light 

vehicle manufacturers and trailer 

manufacturers. Some commenters 

requested a subset of their vehicle 

population, based upon either 

geography or size of their subsidiaries, 

be exempted from the light vehicle 

reporting category. 

Some individual trailer manufacturers 

objected to raising the threshold from 

500 units to 5,000 units annually. These 

manufacturers stated that by raising the 

threshold to 5,000 units per year would 

prevent the agency from receiving 

information from manufacturers of the 

heaviest, and, in their view, more 

dangerous trailers. 

NTEA opposed the agency’s decision 

to not raise the threshold for mediumheavy vehicles and buses. It stated that 

the burden on its members that are 

small multi-stage or final-stage vehicle 

manufacturers to collect and report 

EWR information outweighs any safety 

benefits. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) submitted comments supporting 

the NPRM, but requested NHTSA 

reconsider raising the reporting 

threshold for buses, medium-heavy 

vehicles and motorcycles to 5,000 units 

per year to determine whether the 

burden reduction would be appropriate 

for these categories as well. 

Most commenters acknowledged the 

problems associated with inconsistent 

model names, but opposed the addition 

of a category to the EWR reporting 

template indicating if a model was a 

new (‘‘n’’) model or current model, (‘‘h’’ 

for historical). These commenters 

suggested keeping a requirement for 

consistent model naming, but not 

adding the ‘‘n’’ or an ‘‘h’’ in the EWR 

reporting template. 

Light vehicle industry commenters 

objected to the proposals to add new 

codes for electronic stability control 

(ESC) and fuel or propulsion systems 

because the changes to their data 

collection system and reporting 

templates would be costly and overly 

burdensome. These commenters 

requested that the agency hold a public 

meeting to review these proposed 

changes to the EWR reporting templates 

followed by an additional comment 

period. 

Commenters addressing the proposed 

amendments to part 573 did not object 

to requiring tire manufacturers to 

submit TINs for recalled tires. On the 

proposal to add a country of origin 

reporting requirement, MEMA and the 

Alliance requested that the proposed 

country of origin requirement be 

changed such that the information 

would be provided at a time later than 

the initial report if that information was 

not available at the time. TTMA 

objected to the proposal and said 

reporting country of origin information, 

among other things, would be overly 

burdensome since motor vehicles are 

comprised of hundreds of parts from 

many vendors that may reside in the 

U.S., but whose manufacturing facilities 

may be overseas. 

We also received comments from 

Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. (SRS) 

and Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc. 

(VSCI). While SRS did not oppose the 

proposed amendments in the NPRM 

related to Part 573, it commented that 

NHTSA should amend its process for 

tire recalls. VSCI recommended that the 

agency increase the threshold for EWR 

quarterly reports for motorcycles to 

2,500 units, as a compromise between 

the burden on smaller motorcycle 

manufacturers and the potential safety 

benefit from motorcycle EWR data. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47744 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Differences Between the Proposed 

Rule and the Final Rule 

Today’s final rule differs from the 

proposed rule in several respects. First, 

after review of the comments and 

further consideration, we have decided 

to raise or amend the thresholds for 

medium-heavy vehicles and buses and 

motorcycles. The NPRM proposed to 

keep the quarterly reporting threshold 

for medium-heavy vehicles and 

motorcycles at 500 or more vehicles per 

year and eliminate the threshold for 

buses. As explained below, the final 

rule raises the threshold for quarterly 

EWR reports on most classes of 

medium-heavy vehicles from 500 or 

more vehicles to 5,000 or more vehicles 

annually, with two exceptions. These 

exceptions are for emergency vehicles 

and buses. For emergency vehicles, the 

threshold remains unchanged at 500 or 

more vehicles per year. For buses, the 

final rule sets a threshold of 100 or more 

buses per year. In addition, the final 

rule raises the quarterly reporting 

threshold for motorcycles from 500 or 

more units to 5,000 or more units per 

year. 

NHTSA has decided not to adopt at 

this time the proposals to change the 

light vehicle reporting template. Those 

proposals sought to require light vehicle 

manufacturers to include the vehicle 

type in the aggregate portion of their 

quarterly EWR reports, report on use of 

electronic stability control in light 

vehicles and specify fuel and/or 

propulsion systems when providing 

model designations. Instead of 

proceeding to issue a final rule at this 

time, we have decided to issue a 

separate NPRM on these issues in the 

near future. Among other things, our 

December 2008 NPRM did not include 

a proposed template or definitions for 

the types of fuel and/or propulsion 

systems. We believe that an additional 

round of comments on the proposed 

template and fuel and/or propulsion 

system definitions will permit more 

meaningful comments and 

consideration of the proposed template 

and definitions. 

IV. Discussion 

A. Statutory Background of Early 

Warning and Notification Requirements 

Under the early warning reporting 

provisions of the TREAD Act, NHTSA is 

required to issue a rule establishing 

reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment to enhance the 

agency’s ability to carry out the 

provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49, 

United States Code, which is commonly 

referred to as the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 

and recodified (Safety Act). 49 U.S.C. 

30166(m)(1), (2). Under one subsection 

of the early warning provisions, NHTSA 

is to require reports of information in 

the manufacturers’ possession to the 

extent that such information may assist 

in the identification of safety-related 

defects and which concern, inter alia, 

data on claims for deaths and aggregate 

statistical data on property damage. 49 

U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A)(i); see also 49 

U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(C). Another 

subsection authorizes the agency to 

require manufacturers to report 

information that may assist in the 

identification of safety defects. 49 U.S.C. 

30166(m)(3)(B). Specifically, the 

Secretary may, to the extent that such 

information may assist in the 

identification of safety-related defects in 

motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment in the United States, require 

manufacturers of motor vehicles or 

motor vehicle equipment to report, 

periodically or upon request of the 

Secretary, such information as the 

Secretary may request. This subsection 

conveys substantial authority and 

discretion to the agency. Most EWR 

data, with the exception of information 

on deaths and property damage claims, 

is reported under regulations authorized 

by this provision. 

The agency’s discretion is not 

unfettered. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30166(m)(4)(D), the Secretary shall not 

impose requirements unduly 

burdensome to a manufacturer of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment, taking into account the 

manufacturer’s cost of complying with 

such requirements and the Secretary’s 

ability to use the information sought in 

a meaningful manner to assist in the 

identification of defects related to motor 

vehicle safety. 

The Safety Act also requires 

manufacturers of motor vehicles or 

items of motor vehicle equipment to 

notify NHTSA and owners and 

purchasers of the vehicle or equipment 

if the manufacturer determines that a 

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment contains a defect related to 

motor vehicle safety or does not comply 

with an applicable motor vehicle safety 

standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) & (c). 

Manufacturers must provide notification 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section 

30119 sets forth the contents of the 

notification, which includes a clear 

description of the defect or 

noncompliance, the timing of the 

notification, means of providing 

notification and when a second 

notification is required. 49 U.S.C. 

30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 

confers considerable authority and 

discretion to NHTSA, by rulemaking, to 

require additional information in 

manufacturers’ notifications. See 49 

U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). 

B. Matters Considered in Setting 

Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting 

As part of our evaluation of the 

reporting thresholds for comprehensive 

reporting under the EWR rule and in 

this rulemaking, the agency is 

endeavoring to ensure that it collects a 

body of information that may assist in 

the identification of defects related to 

motor vehicle safety in motor vehicles 

and motor vehicle equipment. We are 

also considering the burden on 

manufacturers. In view of our authority, 

stated in the statute in broad terms, to 

require reporting of information to the 

extent that such information may assist 

in the identification of defects related to 

motor vehicle safety, we do not believe 

that it is necessary or appropriate to 

identify a prescriptive list of factors for 

delineating a reporting threshold. 

Nonetheless, based on our experience, 

the following considerations, among 

other things, have been identified as 

relevant to evaluating whether EWR 

information assists or would assist in 

the identification of safety-related 

defects: 

• The number of manufacturers of a 

particular class of vehicles or 

equipment. 

• The proportion of reporting 

manufacturers in a particular class of 

vehicles or equipment. 

• The number of vehicles or 

equipment items at issue. 

• Whether the vehicles carry large 

numbers of people. 

• The safety risks attendant to a 

particular class of motor vehicles. 

• The nature/amount of EWR data the 

manufacturers have reported or would 

report. 

• Whether the EWR data have been 

useful or are likely to be useful in 

opening investigations into potential 

safety related defects and whether those 

investigations have resulted or may 

result in recalls. 

• The effect that reduction and/or 

addition of EWR data would have on the 

quantity and quality of the data and 

ODI’s ability to identify possible safetyrelated defects. 

• ODI’s ability to monitor a group of 

vehicles and identify possible defects 

without EWR data. 

• The burden on manufacturers. 

• The burden on NHTSA. 

We did not receive any comments 

addressing the appropriateness of these 

considerations, which were listed in the 

NPRM. Accordingly, we conclude that, 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47745 

2A field report is defined as a communication in 

writing, including communications in electronic 

form, from an employee or representative of a 

manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment, a dealer or authorized service facility of 

such manufacturer, or an entity known to the 

manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet, to the 

manufacturer regarding the failure, malfunction, 

lack of durability, or other performance problem of 

a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any 

part thereof, produced for sale by that manufacturer 

and transported beyond the direct control of the 

manufacturer, regardless of whether verified or 

assessed to be lacking in merit, but does not include 

any document covered by the attorney-client 

privilege or the work product exclusion. See 49 CFR 

579.4. 

3Since the first quarter of EWR reporting, EWR 

light vehicle data have assisted or prompted 80 ODI 

investigations into potential safety defects in light 

vehicles, with the aggregate data or field reports 

(non-dealer) data sets most often providing the 

more useful information. Overall, these 

investigations led to 35 recalls involving more than 

18 million units. 

4These two recalls were NHTSA Recall No. 04V– 

589 and 06V–075, which involved vehicles about 

which ODI had information other than EWR data 

to prompt its investigations. 

5 VSCI recommends that ‘‘sponsorship 

relationship’’ be defined as: 

A relationship between two manufacturers such 

that one vehicle manufacturer is deemed to be a 

sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle 

assembled by a second manufacturer because the 

first manufacturer has a substantial role in the 

Continued 

as appropriate, these matters may be 

considered in delineating a reporting 

threshold. 

The general approach of the EWR 

program is to collect very large amounts 

of data on a wide range and volume of 

vehicles and, to a lesser degree, 

equipment, and then systematically 

review the data, with the goal of 

identifying potential safety problems 

that may be revealed by examining the 

data. These data along with other 

information collected by and available 

to the agency are considered in deciding 

whether to open investigations. 

After conducting extensive reviews of 

the EWR data over the last several years, 

NHTSA has determined that today’s 

final rule will reduce overall the 

number of manufacturers that must 

provide comprehensive EWR 

submissions. The amount and 

usefulness of data that will no longer be 

required to be submitted will not be 

significant to NHTSA in assisting in the 

identification of safety related defects. 

C. Light Vehicles 

The current EWR regulation requires 

light vehicle manufacturers producing 

500 or more vehicles per year to provide 

quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 

CFR 579.21. Light vehicle 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

500 vehicles are not required to provide 

quarterly reports, but must provide 

information related to a claim or notice 

alleging a death received by the 

manufacturer. 49 CFR 579.27. 

The NPRM proposed amending 49 

CFR 579.21 to raise the reporting 

threshold for light vehicle 

manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 or 

more vehicles produced per year. Under 

this approach, light vehicle 

manufacturers annually producing 

fewer than 5,000 vehicles would not 

provide quarterly reports containing 

comprehensive data, but would be 

required, under 49 CFR 579.27, to 

provide information related to a claim 

or notice alleging a death received by 

the manufacturer. 

Our proposal to raise the light vehicle 

threshold was based in large part on our 

experience in collecting, reviewing and 

analyzing over four (4) years of EWR 

data. As we explained in the NPRM, the 

light vehicle EWR reporting sector 

consists of 62 manufacturers that submit 

an immense amount of EWR data to 

NHTSA every quarter. In the third 

quarter of 2008 alone, light vehicle 

manufacturers submitted EWR data with 

2,700 property damage claims, 10.2 

million warranty claims, 770,000 

consumer complaints and 390,000 field 

reports 2 based on 168 million light 

vehicles. Light vehicle manufacturers 

submitted approximately 20,000 copies 

of field reports detailed in the third 

quarter of 2008 and information on 

approximately 1,200 death and injury 

incidents. 

Larger volume light vehicle 

manufacturers submit the overall 

majority of the EWR data in this 

reporting category. Conversely, 

manufacturers of 5,000 or fewer light 

vehicles do not submit much EWR 

information. It is common for these 

smaller volume manufacturers to submit 

zero (0) or (1) complaint, claim or field 

report for a specific model and model 

year. This limited amount of EWR data 

from the relatively smaller light vehicle 

manufacturers is of little, if any, 

assistance to ODI in detecting potential 

safety-related defects. 

As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA 

employs several analytical methods to 

identify potential concerns. The agency 

uses statistical methodologies to 

discover outliers or trends, conducts 

manual reviews and analyses of EWR 

data, and evaluates other information, 

such as Vehicle Owner Questionnaires 

(VOQs), when evaluating EWR data. 

Review of EWR submissions from 

smaller volume light vehicle 

manufacturers has not been productive 

in identifying possible safety-related 

defects in light vehicles. 

Manufacturers producing 5,000 or 

more vehicles per year have filed almost 

all of the safety recalls initiated in the 

last five (5) years. Between January 2003 

and January 2008, there were a total of 

646 light vehicle recalls. Ninety-three 

percent of these recalls involved 

manufacturers annually producing 

5,000 or more vehicles. More 

significantly, none of the EWR data 

submitted by light vehicle 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

5,000 vehicles per year has prompted an 

investigation leading to a recall. In fact, 

all of the ODI light vehicle 

investigations prompted by EWR data 

involved vehicles from manufacturers 

annually producing 5,000 or more light 

vehicles.3 Moreover, in that same time 

period, only two recalls pertaining to 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

5,000 light vehicles per year were 

influenced by ODI.4

Ford, the Alliance, AIAM, NTEA, 

SBA and VSCI all supported amending 

49 CFR 579.21 to raise the light vehicle 

reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 or 

more vehicles produced per year. We 

did not receive any comments opposing 

the proposal. 

Accordingly, we are adopting the 

amendment as proposed. Even though 

32 light vehicle manufacturers will no 

longer submit quarterly EWR data, 

NHTSA’s ability to monitor vehicles 

made by these small volume 

manufacturers for potential safety 

concerns will remain intact. Small 

volume manufacturers will still be 

required to report fatality information 

pursuant to 49 CFR 579.27. NHTSA will 

also continue to receive the traditional 

screening information on these vehicles, 

such as VOQs and TSBs. 

The Alliance and VSCI requested that 

small-volume subsidiaries of light 

vehicle manufacturers, i.e., subsidiaries 

producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles, 

report as independent, small-volume 

manufacturers. The Alliance contends 

that EWR data from small-volume 

subsidiaries is not likely to lead to a 

defect investigation or recall. Both the 

Alliance and VSCI assert that requiring 

small-volume subsidiaries to report 

places a disproportionate burden on 

these entities that report independently 

from their larger parent when compared 

to independent small vehicle 

manufacturers. In addition, the Alliance 

and VSCI claim EWR data from these 

small subsidiaries produce no safety 

benefit. While the Alliance requested 

that small-volume subsidiaries be 

excluded from quarterly EWR reporting, 

VSCI recommended that small-volume 

subsidiaries submit quarterly reports if 

there is a ‘‘sponsorship relationship’’ 

between the two manufacturers.5


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47746 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

development and manufacturing process of the 

second manufacturer’s vehicle. Examples of factors 

that will be considered in determining the existence 

of a ‘substantial role’ include: A similarity of design 

between the cars produced by the two 

manufacturers; a sharing of engines, transmissions, 

platforms, interior systems, or production tooling; 

no payment for services or assistance provided to 

one manufacturer by the other; and shared import 

and/or sales distribution channels. 

6Since 2004, small-volume subsidiaries 

referenced in the Alliance’s comments have 

conducted fifteen (15) recalls and another model of 

a small-volume subsidiary was the subject of an 

agency investigation. 

7AIAM cites to 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), which 

states: ‘‘State’’ means a State of the United States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the 

Virgin Islands. 

We decline to adopt the Alliance’s 

and VSCI’s recommendations to exempt 

small-volume subsidiaries from filing 

quarterly EWR reports. We believe that 

data concerning the small-volume 

subsidiaries of large manufacturers is 

likely at times to produce useful 

information. In addition, the 

relationship between a small-volume 

subsidiary and its corporate parent are 

such that the subsidiary may rely on its 

parent for assistance in filing EWR 

reports. 

Increasing globalization of the auto 

industry has increased engineering, 

component and design sharing as 

manufacturers attempt to meet 

competitive challenges. Sharing 

components with their parent 

corporations significantly increases the 

possibility that a subsidiary may share 

a potential safety concern with a parent. 

For example, the Volkswagen Group D1 

platform is shared with the Bentley 

Continental GT and the Bentley 

Continental Flying Spur and BMW 

shares engines and other parts with 

Rolls Royce models. In our view, 

obtaining EWR data from small-volume 

subsidiaries is important for spotting 

potential safety concerns that may exist 

in both a subsidiary and a parent.6 The 

agency believes that the benefit of the 

EWR data provided by these smallvolume subsidiaries assists in the 

identification of potential safety-related 

defects and outweighs the minimal 

reporting burden. 

However, the Alliance and VSCI 

claim that the burden to report for 

small-volume subsidiaries is greater on 

the parent than the costs imposed on 

small independents. The Alliance also 

claimed that the EWR requirements 

place small-volume subsidiaries, such 

as Bentley, Bugati, Lamborghini and 

Rolls Royce at a competitive 

disadvantage. Neither commenter, 

however, submitted any support for 

these assertions. Without support, these 

claims are unpersuasive. Small-volume 

subsidiaries often are supported by their 

parents in the form of technology 

sharing or other resources. Because such 

support is available to small-volume 

subsidiaries, we are not persuaded that 

these subsidiaries are unduly burdened 

by the EWR quarterly reporting 

requirement. 

AIAM’s comments requested NHTSA 

to exempt EWR data generated from 

vehicles in U.S. territories 7 as a ‘‘logical 

outgrowth’’ of the NPRM’s light vehicle 

proposal. AIAM cited the TREAD Act 

provision prohibiting NHTSA from 

establishing unduly burdensome EWR 

requirements and requiring the agency 

to balance the costs of compliance 

against the usefulness of the data. See 

49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D). According to 

AIAM, the cost to collect data from 

territories is extremely burdensome 

compared to the safety benefits of the 

data. 

AIAM argues that several factors 

support its request for an exemption 

from reporting EWR data from U.S. 

territories. AIAM states there are 

relatively small numbers of vehicles 

sold in the U.S. territories (only one half 

to one percent of U.S. vehicle sales, 

according to AIAM), the amount of data 

collected is small, and the burden to 

collect the data is high because 

manufacturers typically rely upon 

manual entry to process EWR reporting 

from U.S. territories. AIAM claims that 

this imposes a disproportionate burden 

on manufacturers in relation to the 

small number of vehicles in the U.S. 

territories. Moreover, AIAM asserts that 

excluding U.S. territories from reporting 

should not significantly affect NHTSA’s 

assessment of possible defect trends, 

since the vast majority of data for each 

model vehicle would continue to be 

reported and fatalities would still be 

reported. Thus, AIAM requests that 

NHTSA amend the first paragraph of 

579.21 by adding: ‘‘With respect to 

paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, 

inclusion of data from Puerto Rico, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 

American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands 

is not required.’’ 

We decline to adopt AIAM’s 

recommendation to exempt 

manufacturers from reporting EWR data 

collected in U.S. territories. First, we do 

not agree that AIAM’s recommendation 

is a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of our proposal 

to raise the light vehicle threshold to 

5,000 vehicles per year and, therefore, it 

is outside the scope of NPRM. The 

NPRM did not propose to create a new 

exemption excluding data from a 

geographic region from quarterly EWR 

reports. Rather, the NPRM proposed 

amending the existing threshold, which 

is based upon whether a manufacturer’s 

aggregate total of vehicles 

manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or 

imported in the United States reaches a 

certain volume. See 67 FR 45822 (July 

10, 2002). We have never proposed to 

exempt data from territories from 

inclusion in a light vehicle 

manufacturer’s quarterly EWR report 

once the manufacturer’s aggregate total 

reaches the threshold. Accordingly, we 

decline to adopt AIAM’s 

recommendation because it is outside 

the scope of the NPRM. 

Even assuming that AIAM’s 

recommendation was within the scope 

of the NPRM, we would not adopt it. We 

note that the TREAD Act amended the 

Safety Act to require manufacturers to 

report EWR data related to motor 

vehicle safety in motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment in the United 

States. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A) & 

(B). As AIAM has recognized, the Safety 

Act defines a ‘‘state’’ to include Puerto 

Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin 

Islands. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10). 

Furthermore, we do not believe the 

burden to report EWR data on vehicles 

from the U.S. territories is excessive. 

Under the provision authorizing the 

EWR program, NHTSA cannot impose 

requirements that are unduly 

burdensome to a manufacturer. 49 

U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D). When 

considering whether a requirement 

under the EWR regulation is unduly 

burdensome, NHTSA must take into 

account the manufacturer’s costs of 

complying with the EWR requirements 

and NHTSA’s ability to use the 

information in a meaningful manner to 

assist in the identification of safetyrelated defects. Id. AIAM did not submit 

any cost data to support its contention 

that obtaining vehicle data from the U.S. 

territories is unduly burdensome. Other 

than stating that its members manually 

process such data, it does not explain 

how the processing of this information 

is burdensome. AIAM acknowledges 

that the number of reportable EWR data 

points from territories is negligible. 

With such a small amount of EWR data 

to report, the cost to submit this 

information appears to be negligible. 

However, because a vehicle sold in the 

territories may manifest a defect found 

in the same model sold elsewhere in the 

United States, this information could be 

useful in detecting patterns related to 

the safety of that model. 

Moreover, AIAM does not address the 

costs of reporting specific types of EWR 

data. For example, the burden to report 

consumer complaints generated from 

consumers in U.S. territories appears to 

be small. Typically, manufacturers have 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47747 

8We also believe that the data collected from U.S. 

territories will assist in the identification of safetyrelated defects. For instance, Puerto Rico has a 

population of slightly fewer than four million 

people, which is more than 24 states and the 

District of Columbia. Puerto Rico has over 2.6 

million registered vehicles, which is more than 

twenty-one (21) states. In our view, losing such a 

large volume of vehicles will hinder our ability to 

identify potential safety issues. 

9Trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 

5,000 trailers annually would be required to 

provide information related to a claim or notice 

alleging a death received by the manufacturer. 49 

CFR 579.27. 

10 Jayco, a manufacturer of recreational vehicles 

and trailers, correctly pointed out that the statement 

in the NPRM regarding the number of influenced 

trailer recalls requires clarification. The NPRM 

failed to explain that we were unable to determine 

the production levels for a number of trailer 

manufacturers conducting recalls at the time of the 

recall. We could not determine an annual 

production level for the manufacturer for 140 

recalls. Of the remaining recalls, nearly 160 were 

conducted by trailer manufacturers producing more 

than 5,000 trailers per year. There were also 121 

trailer recalls conducted by trailer manufacturers 

producing fewer than 5,000 trailers per year. For the 

121 trailer recalls conducted by trailer 

manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers, 

43 of those recalls were influenced by ODI. 

customer service centers that are 

operated either by the manufacturer inhouse or outsourced to a third party. 

The majority of manufacturers have 

Internet websites available for consumer 

comments. Consumers can contact 

manufacturers by telephone or the 

Internet to request information or lodge 

a complaint. These points of contact are 

normally networked with a 

manufacturer’s data system. 

Accordingly, we do not believe that the 

burden to report EWR data is unduly 

burdensome and AIAM offers nothing to 

the contrary.8

For the foregoing reasons, we decline 

to adopt the recommendations of AIAM, 

the Alliance and VSCI to exempt smallvolume subsidiaries and reporting 

regarding activities in U.S. territories 

from EWR quarterly reporting. 

D. Trailers 

The EWR regulation requires trailer 

manufacturers producing 500 or more 

trailers per year to submit 

comprehensive EWR reports to NHTSA. 

49 CFR 579.24. Trailer manufacturers 

annually producing fewer than 500 

vehicles are not required to provide 

quarterly reports to NHTSA, but must 

provide information related to a claim 

or notice alleging a death received by 

the manufacturer. 49 CFR 579.27. 

The NPRM proposed amending 49 

CFR 579.24 to raise the reporting 

threshold for trailer manufacturers from 

its current level of 500 to 5,000 or more 

trailers per year. Under this approach, 

trailer manufacturers that producing 

fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year 

would not provide comprehensive 

reports to NHTSA, but would be 

required to provide fatality information 

under 49 CFR 579.27. 

Our proposal to amend the trailer 

threshold was based on our experience 

in collecting, reviewing and analyzing 

EWR data over four (4) years. As we 

explained in the preamble to the NPRM, 

approximately 280 trailer manufacturers 

currently submit a large amount of data 

to NHTSA every quarter. See 73 FR 

74101, 74107–08. For the third quarter 

of 2008, trailer manufacturers submitted 

approximately 130 property damage 

claims, 50,000 warranty claims, 8,000 

consumer complaints and 450 field 

reports related to 15 million trailers. For 

scores of trailer manufacturers currently 

producing 500 or more vehicles, but 

fewer than 5,000 vehicles, the proposed 

amendment would greatly reduce their 

reporting burden.9

As pointed out in the preamble to the 

NPRM, NHTSA does not believe 

establishing a threshold level of 5,000 

trailers will meaningfully reduce EWR 

trailer data. Although raising the 

threshold for the trailer category to 

5,000 relieves 219 trailer manufacturers 

from quarterly EWR reporting, our 

analysis indicates that manufacturers 

producing 5,000 or more trailers 

account for nearly 80% of all trailer 

production volume and 70% of the EWR 

aggregate trailer data. We do not believe 

that the reduction in manufacturers, 

production data or aggregate data will 

reduce our ability to identify potential 

defects. Manufacturers producing fewer 

than 5,000 trailers per year generally do 

not provide robust EWR data that assists 

in identifying potential defects. See 73 

FR 74101, 74107–08. 

In the preamble to the NPRM, we 

noted that quarterly EWR data from 

small-volume trailer manufacturers 

presented little information and is 

unlikely to lead a defect investigation. 

NHTSA’s traditional screening tools, 

such as fleet contacts, technical service 

bulletins and VOQs have proven 

effective at identifying safety concerns 

in the smaller volume trailers and 

leading to defect investigations. Id. The 

NPRM noted that ODI influenced 421 

trailer recalls from 2003 to 2008.10

Nine (9) commenters responded to 

our proposal to raise the trailer 

threshold. RVIA, TTMA, NTEA, NATM, 

NMMA and SBA all supported the 

proposed amendment to 49 CFR 579.24. 

Many of these commenters concurred 

that the amended threshold would 

reduce the burden of EWR reporting on 

small manufacturers without any 

material reduction to NHTSA’s ability to 

identify potential safety-related defects. 

Big Tex Trailers Manufacturing, Inc. 

(Big Tex), Carry-On Trailer, Inc., and PJ 

Trailers Manufacturing, Inc, all 

manufacturers that annually produce 

more than 5,000 trailers, submitted 

comments opposing our proposal. They 

argue that raising the threshold would 

undermine NHTSA’s ability to identify 

safety-related defects. These 

commenters assert that NHTSA’s 

estimates on the number of trailer 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

5,000 trailers are very low. These 

companies also claim and that raising 

the threshold will largely eliminate 

quarterly EWR reporting data for trailers 

with 20,000 GVWR or more (which 

allegedly pose a greater risk to safety 

than trailers less than 20,000 GVWR) 

even though the reporting burden is the 

same for large and small manufacturers. 

However, these three companies did not 

submit any data to support these claims. 

Big Tex claims that there are 

‘‘hundreds’’ of trailer manufacturers 

who are not reporting—either due to 

noncompliance with the EWR rule or 

because they produce fewer than 500 

units per year. However, Big Tex did not 

submit any supporting information, 

such as trailer manufacturers subject to 

comprehensive EWR reporting that are 

not reporting. Our information indicates 

otherwise. NHTSA contacted over 2,300 

trailer manufacturers, advised them of 

their EWR-reporting requirements and 

requested their annual production 

volume. Our results indicate that trailer 

manufacturers required to file EWR 

reports are doing so. Even if 

considerable numbers of manufacturers 

are not meeting their obligations, the 

comments do not address whether the 

quality and quantity of EWR data 

contained within the reports would 

provide sufficient information to assist 

in the identification of potential defects. 

Smaller trailer manufacturers often have 

little or no EWR data to report. Such 

reporting results in product lines with 

no reportable data or reports of small 

numbers of incidents from quarter to 

quarter that are not indicative of 

meaningful trends. The data gleaned 

from these reports are simply not 

helpful to NHTSA. 

Big-Tex also argues that raising the 

threshold to 5,000 or more units per 

year will eliminate EWR reporting for a 

significant number of trailer 

manufacturers producing trailers over 

20,000 GVWR, which Big-Tex contends 

pose the greatest risk to safety. Big Tex 

offers no basis supporting this alleged 

greater safety risk. Our experience 

indicates that trailers over 20,000 

GVWR or over are generally maintained 

by fleets. If these trailers experience any 

down time, the fleet operator will lose 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47748 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

11For example, in 2008, trailer manufacturers 

conducted a total of 116 recalls, with 99 of the 

recalls involving trailers less than 26,000 GVWR. Of 

the 116 recalls, ODI influenced 85 recalls, with 75 

of those influenced recalls involving trailers less 

than 26,000 GVWR. 

potential revenue. Thus, these fleets 

have an economic incentive to regularly 

maintain and inspect their trailers. 

Moreover, fleet operators often 

communicate directly with 

manufacturers regarding maintenance 

and safety. As a result, heavier trailers 

do not necessarily pose a greater defect 

risk than other trailer types. Our 

experience with investigations of 

trailers over 20,000 GVWR does not 

support the premise that these trailers 

pose a greater defect risk.11

Big-Tex’s claim that raising the 

reporting threshold to 5,000 or more 

trailers per year will cause a significant 

loss of EWR data for trailers over 20,000 

GVWR is incorrect. Our evaluation 

shows that raising the threshold to 5,000 

or more trailers annually will still result 

in receiving ninety-six (96) percent of 

the current production data being 

submitted to NHTSA from 

manufacturers producing trailers over 

20,000 GVWR. Because the aggregate 

data in this vehicle category has not 

proven particularly useful, this 

reduction will not significantly reduce 

our ability to adequately identify 

potential safety-related defects in 

trailers over 20,000 GVWR. 

Big-Tex also states that the reporting 

burdens for larger trailer manufacturers 

are similar to smaller manufacturers. 

Big-Tex provides no data to support this 

claim. NHTSA’s analysis of EWR trailer 

data weighed the costs of reporting EWR 

data with the agency’s ability to use it 

to identify potential safety defects. Our 

evaluation of trailer EWR data indicates 

that data from trailer manufacturers 

producing more than 5,000 trailers per 

year have more depth, tend to be 

consistent from quarter to quarter and 

are most likely to provide assistance in 

detecting defects. The same cannot be 

said for EWR data from trailer 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

5,000 per year. 

Accordingly, we are amending 49 CFR 

579.22 to raise the reporting threshold 

for trailer manufacturers to 5,000 or 

more vehicles produced annually. 

E. Buses 

Medium-heavy vehicle and bus 

manufacturers producing 500 or more 

units per year currently submit 

quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 

CFR 579.22. There are approximately 20 

bus manufacturers submitting quarterly 

EWR reports to NHTSA. For the third 

quarter of 2008, bus manufacturers 

submitted, approximately 6 property 

damage claims, 74,000 warranty claims, 

1,000 consumer complaints and 2,700 

field reports on 750,000 buses. They 

also submitted approximately 150 

copies of field reports. 

The preamble to the NPRM stated that 

there is a significant need to amend the 

threshold level of reporting for 

manufacturers of buses because buses— 

whether school buses, transit buses, or 

motor coaches—have unique 

characteristics. These vehicles carry 

more occupants than other vehicle 

types, which increases safety risks on a 

per-vehicle basis. Because of the 

potential for multiple fatalities and 

injuries from a single crash, there is 

greater urgency for identifying safety 

concerns at the earliest possible time. 

Our NPRM noted that several recent bus 

crashes reinforced the importance of 

creating a special EWR status for bus 

manufacturers similar to that of child 

restraint manufacturers. See 73 FR 

74101, 74108. 

Our proposal considered factors for 

different thresholds, such as the 

likelihood of capturing useful data and 

bus safety risks, balanced against data 

submission burdens and the agency’s 

costs. Our experience with recalls by 

bus manufacturers producing fewer than 

500 vehicles per year reinforced the 

need to expand early warning reporting. 

Further, the safety risk presented by bus 

defects outweighs the costs of start-up 

and on-going reporting of EWR data. Id. 

NTEA and SBA both commented on 

our proposal to eliminate the reporting 

threshold for manufacturers of buses. 

Both opposed the proposal. We did not 

receive any comments from 

manufacturers of buses. SBA noted that 

NHTSA’s reference to bus crashes does 

not address whether EWR reporting 

would have prevented those crashes. It 

recommended that NHTSA reassess 

changing the EWR bus reporting 

threshold, and determine whether the 

burden reduction analysis stated for the 

light vehicle and trailer categories 

would be appropriate for buses. NTEA 

recognized the greater safety concern for 

buses, but urged NHTSA to revise its 

proposal to include a low, small-volume 

threshold. NTEA asserts that NHTSA’s 

proposal is too broad, creating large 

burdens for small manufacturers and 

capturing manufacturers not intended to 

report under the EWR rule as bus 

manufacturers. Specifically, NTEA 

argues that a company building one bus 

would be required to file quarterly 

reports, which would be a significant 

burden. Furthermore, NTEA states that 

the agency’s definition of a bus (a motor 

vehicle with motive power, except a 

trailer, designed for carrying more than 

10 persons, see 49 CFR 579.4(b)) is so 

broad that the proposal would require 

all kinds of manufacturers, including 

manufacturers of limousines with very 

low production levels, to submit 

quarterly EWR reports. As a result, 

NTEA believes, the proposal sweeps up 

hundreds of smaller manufacturers. 

NTEA contends that the agency’s 

estimate that only seventeen bus 

manufacturers would become obligated 

to make quarterly EWR reports is very 

low. But NTEA did not submit names of 

bus manufacturers that would be 

required to report if the reporting 

threshold were lowered. 

NHTSA estimated that seventeen 

manufacturers would be required to 

submit quarterly EWR reports if it 

eliminated the bus threshold. The 

agency stated that most of these 

manufacturers produce hundreds of 

buses per year, but were below the 

existing reporting threshold. However, 

as NTEA points out, the proposed 

elimination of the EWR bus reporting 

threshold captures many manufacturers 

that have an annual production of 100 

or fewer buses. Our proposal intended 

to capture additional manufacturers of 

school buses, transit buses and motor 

coaches, not very small manufacturers 

of limousines and similar vehicles. 

The distinguishing characteristic of 

buses is that they transport numerous 

people, and a single bus crash may 

result in many injuries and fatalities. 

The bus crashes we referenced, as SBA 

pointed out, were not singled out to 

suggest that EWR data would have 

prevented those particular bus crashes. 

Their purpose was simply to illustrate 

that bus crashes can result in multiple 

deaths and injuries. Because of this 

characteristic, we believe that there is a 

strong safety interest in improving our 

ability to identify potential defects in 

buses. This benefit outweighs the 

burden on reporting for these additional 

bus manufacturers. 

Bus manufacturers producing fewer 

than 500 buses per year conduct a 

significant number of recalls every year. 

Since 2003, there have been 

approximately 39 recalls involving 

8,000 buses by bus manufacturers 

producing fewer than 500 buses 

annually. Because of passenger density, 

defect related safety risks could affect 

tens of thousands of passengers per 

year. Moreover, NHTSA’s traditional 

data collection methods are not as 

robust for buses as compared to light 

vehicles and other vehicles. For 

example, vehicle owner complaints, 

which are a vital source of information 

on light vehicles, are rare for buses. 

Given the potential harm from just one 

bus crash, NHTSA concludes that 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47749 

12For medium-heavy vehicle and bus category, 

vehicle type means: Truck, tractor, transit bus, 

school bus, coach, recreational vehicle, emergency 

vehicle or other. 49 CFR 579.4(c). While buses are 

included within this category, they have been 

addressed previously in section E of this notice and 

are not included in the following discussion. 

reducing the threshold for reporting by 

bus manufacturers to permit 

identification of potential defects is 

appropriate. 

Consideration of comments from SBA 

and NTEA led NHTSA to re-examine 

the EWR reporting threshold for buses 

including the utility of the data 

produced. At the outset, we recognize 

that very small volume manufacturers 

would not submit EWR data robust 

enough to permit expeditious 

identification of potential defects. 

Therefore, data from manufacturers 

producing few buses will not be 

required to report. However, due to the 

strong safety concerns with regard to 

buses, expanded reporting is necessary. 

We believe that an appropriate reporting 

threshold is 100 buses per year. Of the 

seventeen bus manufacturers identified 

in the NPRM as producing fewer than 

500 buses per year, fifteen produce 100 

or more buses annually. 

In addition, NHTSA analyzes EWR 

data submitted by bus and mediumheavy vehicle manufacturers on a 

quarterly basis. In this analysis, agency 

staff rank potential issues by vehicle 

make and model. Data from each quarter 

identify dozens of makes and models of 

buses and medium-heavy vehicles that 

require further evaluation by ODI. In the 

last six quarterly evaluations, NHTSA 

has preliminarily identified fifteen bus 

models from seven different 

manufacturers for further evaluation. 

The NPRM estimated that the costs for 

each additional bus manufacturer would 

include a one-time start-up cost of 

approximately $3,500 and an annual 

reporting cost of approximately $13,000. 

See 73 FR 74101, 74109. SBA requested 

that we reconsider the burden reporting 

imposes on small business bus 

manufacturers. That agency did not 

submit any cost data or estimates for us 

to consider. Indeed, none of the 

commenters submitted cost information 

to assist in our determination of the cost 

of quarterly reporting for small 

businesses manufacturing buses. 

Considering the potential safety 

consequences and the considerable 

potential value EWR data may have in 

helping prevent bus crashes, fires or 

related injuries, the compliance costs 

are not unduly burdensome. As 

discussed further in section VI.B, below, 

ten (10) of the fifteen bus manufacturers 

that produce 100 or more buses 

annually are considered small 

businesses according to criteria used for 

analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq. For the reasons explained in that 

section, we do not believe that this 

burden will be a significant economic 

impact on these bus manufacturers. In 

our view, setting the EWR reporting 

threshold to require EWR quarterly 

reports from bus manufacturers 

producing 100 or more buses per year 

strikes the correct balance between the 

interests of smaller manufacturers and 

public safety. 

Based upon the foregoing, we are 

amending 49 CFR 579.22 to lower the 

current reporting threshold for bus 

manufacturers from 500 or more buses 

annually to 100 or more buses per year. 

We are also amending 49 CFR 579.22 to 

distinguish buses from other mediumheavy vehicles so manufacturers 

producing both buses and mediumheavy vehicles do not aggregate 

production of all their products for EWR 

reporting purposes. Thus, a 

manufacturer that produces both buses 

and other medium heavy vehicles does 

not have to also submit quarterly EWR 

reports for its medium-heavy vehicles 

until its annual production of those 

vehicles reaches the medium-heavy 

reporting threshold. 

F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles 

Medium-heavy vehicle and bus 

manufacturers annually producing 500 

or more units have been required to 

submit quarterly EWR reports to 

NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22. The vehicles in 

this category include emergency 

vehicles, recreational vehicles, trucks, 

tractors or others.12 49 CFR 579.4(c). For 

medium-heavy vehicles (other than 

buses), we proposed to keep the 

quarterly reporting threshold at 500 or 

more vehicles produced per year. 

The NPRM noted that approximately 

65 emergency vehicle, recreational 

vehicle, truck, and tractor 

manufacturers were submitting 

quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. See 

73 FR 74101, 74109–10. For the third 

quarter of 2008, these manufacturers 

submitted approximately 125 property 

damage claims, 480,000 warranty 

claims, 14,000 consumer complaints 

and 34,000 field reports on 6 million 

vehicles. Id. These vehicle 

manufacturers report data on 

approximately 300,000 potential 

products-components (the number of 

distinct models reported by these 

manufacturers multiplied by the 

number of components in EWR). In 

addition to the large amount of 

aggregate data submitted for the third 

quarter of 2008, these manufacturers 

reported approximately 40 death and 

injury incidents and provided 2,000 

copies of non-dealer field reports. 

The December 5, 2008 NPRM 

indicated that we would leave the EWR 

reporting threshold for medium-heavy 

manufacturers (excluding buses) 

unchanged due to a combination of 

factors, such as the proportion of 

manufacturers that would no longer 

have to report, the proportion of 

vehicles that would no longer be subject 

to reporting and the effect that the 

reduction of EWR data would have on 

ODI’s ability to detect potential safety 

defects. Id. 

SBA and NTEA both commented on 

our proposal to keep the medium-heavy 

reporting threshold at 500 or more 

vehicles. Both objected to keeping the 

threshold unchanged. SBA 

recommended that NHTSA reassess the 

benefits and burdens of medium-heavy 

vehicle EWR reporting and determine if 

burden reduction would be appropriate. 

Similarly, NTEA requested that the 

agency reassess its proposal and afford 

small volume medium-heavy 

manufacturers the same regulatory relief 

as the small volume manufacturers of 

light vehicles and trailers. NTEA noted 

that several of the recalls referenced by 

NHTSA in the preamble would not have 

been affected by an increase to the 

medium-heavy vehicle reporting 

threshold. NTEA also pointed out 

increasing the reporting threshold for 

the medium-heavy category to 5,000 or 

more vehicles would cause a loss of six 

percent of the aggregate data and 

thirteen percent of production data. 

NTEA argued that this analysis of 

medium-heavy vehicles could be further 

refined depending upon the type of 

medium-heavy vehicle. In NTEA’s view, 

these analyses would likely show that 

raising the threshold would have little 

effect for certain vehicle types. 

Our NPRM analysis focused on the 

number of manufacturers, by vehicle 

type, that would no longer have to 

report at certain threshold levels, the 

amount of EWR data lost by raising the 

threshold, the effect of data reduction 

on our ability to identify possible 

defects that might be safety related and 

our ability to monitor medium-heavy 

vehicles without EWR data. 

Examination of varying threshold levels 

(1,000, 2,500 and 5,000) revealed that 

manufacturers in certain vehicle types 

would no longer submit comprehensive 

EWR reports. The largest reduction of 

manufacturers would occur in the 

emergency vehicle category (50 percent, 

75 percent and 75 percent, respectively). 

Similarly, we found that the greatest 

percentage loss of aggregate data from 

the threshold changes would be within 

the emergency vehicle category (45 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47750 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

13NTEA commented that the recalls we 

referenced were not related to medium-heavy 

vehicles that produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles. 

After further review, it appears that Recall number 

03V–035 should have been 04V–035, which involve 

recreational vehicles. Recall number 03V–465 

appears to be a mistake. It involves only 

recreational trailers and not any recreational 

vehicles. The remaining recalls all involve 

manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles that 

produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually. See 73 

FR 74109–10. 

percent, 100 percent and 100 percent, 

respectively). The NPRM cited prior 

recalls that, in our view, illustrated a 

need to continue to obtain EWR data 

from small volume manufacturers in 

order to receive timely information.13

In light of the SBA and NTEA 

comments, we have reviewed relevant 

information, including the loss of EWR 

data that would occur if the threshold 

were raised. Raising the threshold for 

medium-heavy vehicles, even slightly, 

would foreclose EWR reporting by 

significant numbers of emergency 

vehicle manufacturers. 

In our view, emergency vehicle 

reports are important for safety. For 

purposes of EWR, these vehicles include 

ambulances and fire trucks. This has 

been reflected historically in EWR 

reports wherein manufacturers’ reports 

on emergency vehicles (a type of vehicle 

in EWR reporting) have included 

ambulances and fire trucks. These 

vehicles have characteristics that are 

distinguishable from other mediumheavy vehicles. They operate under high 

stress conditions, transport emergency 

personnel, and carry individuals in 

need of urgent medical care. 

Raising the EWR quarterly reporting 

threshold from 500 or more would 

severely impact the EWR program’s 

ability to monitor emergency vehicles. 

At a threshold level of 1,000 or more 

vehicles, 50 percent of all emergency 

vehicle manufacturers would no longer 

report EWR data, presenting a loss of 47 

percent of production and 45 percent of 

aggregate data. At a threshold level of 

2,500 or more vehicles, 75 percent of all 

emergency vehicle manufacturers would 

no longer report EWR data, a loss of 73 

percent of production and all of the 

aggregate data currently in ARTEMIS. 

The elimination of such a significant 

amount of emergency vehicle 

production and EWR data would 

severely impact the ability of NHTSA to 

identify potential defect trends in these 

vehicles. 

Recent use of EWR medium-heavy 

vehicle data illustrates the negative 

impact stemming from significant losses 

of emergency vehicle EWR data. NHTSA 

analyzes the medium and heavy vehicle 

EWR data each quarter. The highest 

ranked vehicles—those with an 

increasing claim trend or a claims 

spike—present potential defect issues. 

For vehicles ranked the highest, NHTSA 

reviews other available information, 

such as VOQs, TSBs, and existing 

recalls, to further assess any potential 

defect risk. In the last six quarters, six 

different makes and models of 

emergency vehicles were identified 

within the highest ranked vehicles. Each 

of these vehicles was made by a 

manufacturer annually producing fewer 

than 2,500 vehicles. Finally, we note 

there have been 65 recalls of emergency 

vehicles in the last ten years, with more 

than half of those recalls conducted by 

manufacturers producing fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually. Therefore, 

raising the EWR reporting threshold for 

emergency vehicles would impair the 

identification of potential defects in 

these specialty vehicles. 

NHTSA also revisited its analyses of 

the appropriate threshold for other 

medium-heavy vehicle types. The 

agency has decided to raise the 

threshold for these vehicle types: 

Recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and 

other. Raising the EWR reporting 

threshold for these medium-heavy 

vehicle types would not have a 

detrimental effect on identifying 

possible defects. Using the EWR data 

from the third quarter of 2008, raising 

the threshold 500 to 1,000 or more for 

recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and 

other medium-heavy vehicles 

(excluding buses and emergency 

vehicles) per year would result in a 

small loss of production data and 

aggregate data (one percent and six 

tenths of one percent, respectively). 

Raising the reporting threshold to 2,500 

or more for recreational vehicle, truck, 

tractor and other medium-heavy 

vehicles (excluding buses and 

emergency vehicles) results in a four 

percent loss of production data and a 

three percent loss of aggregate data. 

Increasing the reporting threshold to 

5,000 or more for recreational vehicle, 

truck, tractor and other (excluding buses 

and emergency vehicles) results in a 

loss of ten percent of the production 

volume and a six percent loss of the 

aggregate data. In our view, raising the 

threshold to 5,000 or more would not 

significantly impair identification of 

potential safety-related defects in 

recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and 

other medium-heavy vehicles 

(excluding buses and emergency 

vehicles). 

Indeed, recent reviews of EWR 

medium-heavy vehicle data from 

recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and 

other medium-heavy vehicles 

(excluding buses and emergency 

vehicles) indicate that the majority of 

the vehicles with the highest ranking for 

further review are produced by 

manufacturers building more than 5,000 

or more vehicles per year. Even though 

this method is normalized for 

production, 95 percent of the vehicles 

reviewed were from manufacturers that 

produced 5,000 or more units per year. 

Further, EWR data from manufacturers 

producing fewer than 5,000 recreational 

vehicle, truck, tractor and other 

medium-heavy vehicles (excluding 

buses and emergency vehicles) have not 

prompted an investigation or recall. To 

date, the EWR data for medium-heavy 

truck manufacturers annually producing 

more than 5,000 vehicles has prompted 

or influenced ten (10) investigations, 

several informal inquires, eight (8) 

recalls and one (1) owner notification 

program. 

Based upon the foregoing, we are 

amending 49 CFR 579.22 to raise the 

medium-heavy vehicle (other than buses 

and emergency vehicles) EWR 

comprehensive reporting threshold from 

its current level of 500 to 5,000 or more 

vehicles produced per year. For 

emergency vehicles, we have decided to 

maintain the reporting threshold at its 

current level of 500 or more vehicles per 

year. Consistent with our approach 

towards bus manufacturers, we are 

amending 49 CFR 579.22 to treat 

emergency vehicles and other mediumheavy vehicles separately so that 

manufacturers producing both 

emergency vehicles and other mediumheavy vehicles, such as recreational 

vehicles, trucks or tractors, do not 

aggregate production for EWR reporting 

purposes. Thus, a manufacturer that 

produces both emergency vehicles and 

other medium heavy vehicles does not 

have to also submit quarterly EWR 

reports for its non-emergency vehicles 

unless its annual production of those 

vehicles reaches 5,000 or more. 

G. Motorcycles 

The EWR regulation requires 

motorcycle manufacturers annually 

producing 500 or more units to submit 

quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 

CFR 579.23. The December 2008 NPRM 

proposed leaving the existing EWR 

motorcycle reporting threshold 

unchanged. We based this decision on 

a combination of factors, including the 

proportion of manufacturers impacted 

by any change, the proportion of 

motorcycles that would no longer be 

included in reports due to a threshold 

change, the effect reducing EWR data 

would have on our ability to identify 

possible safety-related defects, and the 

safety risks attendant to 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47751 

14We also observed that motorcycle fatality and 

injury trends have risen over the past several years. 

While we remain concerned about these increasing 

trends, closer examination reveals that factors such 

as alcohol use and a declining use of motorcycle 

helmets played an integral role in these trends. See 

Traffic Safety Facts 2007 Data Motorcycles, DOT HS 

810 990. 

15 ‘‘Model’’ means a name that a manufacturer of 

motor vehicles applies to a family of vehicles 

within a make which have a degree of commonality 

in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type. 

For equipment other than child restraint systems, 

it means the name that the manufacturer uses to 

designate it. For child restraint systems, it means 

the name that the manufacturer uses to identify 

child restraint systems with the same seat shell, 

buckle, base (if so equipped) and restraint system. 

49 CFR 579.4. 

16 ‘‘Model year’’ means the year that a 

manufacturer uses to designate a discrete model of 

vehicle, irrespective of the calendar year in which 

the vehicle was manufactured. If the manufacturer 

has not assigned a model year, it means the 

calendar year in which the vehicle was 

manufactured. 49 CFR 579.4. 

motorcycles.14See 73 FR 74101, 74110– 

11. 

The SBA and VSCI both commented 

on our proposal. NHTSA did not receive 

comments from any other individuals or 

entities on this issue. Both the SBA and 

VSCI suggested changing the motorcycle 

threshold. SBA recommended that 

NHTSA reassess the benefits and 

burdens of EWR reporting. Similarly, 

VSCI contended that there is a threshold 

above 500 which addresses safety issues 

noted in NHTSA’s proposal and reduces 

burdens on small-volume motorcycle 

manufacturers. 

SBA’s and VSCI’s comments led the 

agency to re-examine whether raising 

the motorcycle EWR reporting threshold 

would be detrimental to identification 

of possible defects. As NHTSA gains 

additional EWR experience, we have 

continued to refine our analytical 

processes and reviews of motorcycle 

EWR data. We have decided to raise the 

threshold for motorcycles from 500 to 

5,000 or more units per year. Raising 

this threshold will not impair NHTSA’s 

ability to identify possible motorcycle 

safety defects. 

Twenty-three motorcycle 

manufacturers presently provide EWR 

quarterly reports to NHTSA. In the third 

quarter of 2008, these twenty-three 

manufacturers submitted approximately 

two property damage claims, 104,000 

warranty claims, 4,000 consumer 

complaints and 15,000 field reports for 

nearly seven million vehicles. These 

motorcycle manufacturers report data 

on approximately 37,000 potential 

products-components. Analyzing EWR 

data received in the 3rd quarter of 2008, 

shows that raising the motorcycle 

reporting threshold from 500 to 1,000 

would reduce reported production and 

aggregate data by one-tenth of one 

percent and four-hundredths of one 

percent, respectively. A reporting 

threshold of 2,500 motorcycles or more 

would lower the production and 

aggregate data by one percent. 

Increasing the motorcycle reporting 

threshold to 5,000 or more would cause 

less than three percent of the production 

volume and seven percent of the 

aggregate data to not be reported. 

Raising the threshold to 5,000 or more 

units annually would relieve eight small 

motorcycle manufacturers from 

providing quarterly EWR reports. In our 

view, raising the threshold to 5,000 or 

more units per year would not impact 

NHTSA’s identification of potential 

safety-defects in motorcycles. 

Based on a review of quarterly EWR 

motorcycle data, EWR data from 

manufacturers producing 5,000 or more 

motorcycles annually appear to provide 

more assistance in identifying potential 

issues than manufacturers producing 

fewer than 5,000 motorcycles per year. 

To date, EWR data from manufacturers 

producing 5,000 or more motorcycles 

per year has prompted or influenced 

five (5) investigations, several informal 

inquires and four (4) recalls. In contrast, 

EWR data from manufacturers 

producing fewer than 5,000 motorcycles 

have not prompted an investigation or 

recall. Overall, significantly more recalls 

are conducted by large-volume 

motorcycle manufacturers. Motorcycle 

manufacturers have conducted 277 

recalls since 2003; over 80% of these 

recalls involved motorcycles from 

manufacturers annually producing 

5,000 or more motorcycles 

Based upon the foregoing, we are 

amending 49 CFR 579.23 to raise the 

EWR comprehensive reporting 

threshold from 500 to 5,000 or more 

motorcycles annually. Manufacturers 

producing fewer than 5,000 motorcycles 

per year will be required to submit 

information on fatalities pursuant to 49 

CFR 579.27. 

H. Response to the National Truck 

Equipment Association Petition for 

Rulemaking 

In April 2006, the National Truck 

Equipment Association (NTEA) 

petitioned the agency to amend the 

EWR rule to raise the EWR 

comprehensive reporting threshold for 

all vehicles 500 to 5,000 vehicles 

annually, including final-stage 

manufacturers, or, alternatively, permit 

final-stage manufacturers, regardless of 

their annual production, to report on a 

limited basis under 49 CFR part 579.27. 

NHTSA proposed denying NTEA’s 

petition in the December 2008 NPRM. 

See 73 FR 74101, 74113. NTEA did not 

comment specifically about our 

proposed denial. Instead, NTEA chose 

to comment on specific vehicle types 

such buses and other medium-heavy 

vehicles, as noted above in sections IV.E 

and IV.F. 

Although this final rule does not 

create the separate category for final– 

stage manufacturers sought by NTEA, it 

amends the reporting threshold 

applicable to the majority of final-stage 

manufacturers producing light vehicles, 

trailers and medium-heavy vehicles. As 

explained in sections IV.E and IV.F 

above, today’s final rule treats buses and 

emergency vehicles differently—those 

vehicles have a lower reporting 

threshold than the other medium-heavy 

vehicles. Accordingly, the requirement 

to submit comprehensive EWR reports 

varies depending on the type of vehicles 

produced. Final-stage manufacturers 

annually producing 5,000 or more light 

vehicles, trailers or medium-heavy 

vehicles, other than buses or emergency 

vehicles, are required to submit 

quarterly EWR data. Moreover, NTEA’s 

comments recognized a need to treat 

those vehicle types differently than 

others. Therefore, based upon the 

foregoing, NTEA’s petition is denied. 

I. Data Consistency 

Manufacturers are required to follow 

certain filing naming conventions when 

submitting their quarterly EWR reports. 

49 CFR 579.29(a). The naming 

conventions do not specify a format for 

providing the model names. 

Manufacturers are under no obligation 

to provide the same make, model 15 and 

model year16 name from quarter to 

quarter, although the overwhelming 

majority of manufacturers do so. 

The NPRM identified our difficulties 

in analyzing EWR data due to 

inconsistent model naming across 

different EWR quarters. See 73 FR 

74101, 74113–14. To prevent future 

inconsistencies, we proposed amending 

49 CFR 579.29 to require manufacturers 

to provide identical make, model and 

model year information for products or 

to timely notify NHTSA of changes in 

these data. Our proposal did not intend 

to preclude manufacturers from 

changing or creating another name 

when a ‘‘new’’ product (e.g., a new 

model and/or model year) is reported. 

The amendment sought to require that 

a product’s make, model, and model 

year are consistent from the first time it 

is given throughout subsequent reports. 

We noted that if this proposal were 

adopted, we planned on implementing 

a screening process to ensure data 

integrity and to reject quarterly 

submissions with inconsistent product 

names. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47752 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

17We will configure ARTEMIS to identify new, 

historical and inconsistent model designations 

based upon the reporting year and model year. 

ARTEMIS will classify models as ‘‘new’’ when the 

reporting year and model year are within specific 

parameters. These parameters are generally based 

upon when manufacturers introduce their new 

models. Most manufacturers introduce new models 

in the third quarter of the prior calendar year of the 

designated model year (for instance, most 2010 

models are introduced in September 2009). Some 

models are introduced earlier as early model year 

entries. Thus, ARTEMIS will accept new model 

names that are submitted in an EWR report if the 

model year is equal to or fewer than 2 years from 

the report year. This can be expressed by the 

formula: (Model year (MY) = Reporting year (RY), 

MY = RY+1, or MY = RY+2). However, if the model 

year of the ‘‘new’’ model is less than the report year 

or greater than 3 years, the submission will be 

rejected because of an inconsistent model name. 

ARTEMIS identifies historical model names by 

cross-checking each EWR submission with prior 

EWR submissions to match identical model names 

and model years. 

Our intention to reject quarterly 

reports raised the issue of how a 

manufacturer notifies NHTSA that it 

plans to report a new model. We 

proposed amending the EWR reporting 

template to add a new field so 

manufacturers could indicate the 

introduction of a new make, model and 

model year vehicle. A manufacturer 

would populate the field with an ‘‘n’’ 

for a make, model, model year vehicle 

with a new model name in its EWR 

submission for the quarter that the new 

model debuts. Otherwise, manufacturers 

would provide an ‘‘h’’ to indicate that 

the make, model, model year is not new, 

but a historical product. 

We received comments from the 

Alliance, Ford and TTMA on this issue. 

The Alliance and Ford agreed with the 

need for consistent model naming, 

while TTMA opposed our proposal. The 

Alliance, however, urged the agency not 

to revise the reporting templates by 

adding an additional field for entering 

an ‘n’ for a ‘new’ model or an ‘h’ for a 

‘historical’ model.’’ The Alliance 

believes that revising the current 

templates would impose substantial 

costs and burdens upon the 

manufacturers. TTMA is concerned that 

the designations ‘‘h’’ and ‘‘n’’ would be 

prone to data entry errors. 

We have decided to adopt the 

amendment to 49 CFR 579.27 as 

proposed, with a minor revision. Based 

upon the comments and our further 

reassessment of our data capabilities, we 

will not require manufacturers to advise 

the agency of a new or historical 

product. Our data system has the 

capability to cross-check the make, 

model and model year in new EWR 

reports with the make, model and model 

year of EWR reports on record. After 

performing this cross-check, NHTSA 

will be able to identify which model 

names are ‘‘new’’ and which are 

‘‘historical’’ and identify inconsistent 

model names. If a manufacturer submits 

a quarterly EWR report with a model 

name that is not consistent with a model 

name previously submitted, the system 

will automatically reject the report. On 

the other hand, if the quarterly EWR 

report includes a new model, our 

system will accept the quarterly EWR 

report.17 Therefore, modification of the 

template and use of an ‘‘n’’ or ‘‘h’’ 

designation is unnecessary. 

Based on the foregoing, we are 

amending 49 CFR 579.27(a) to require 

model naming consistency without 

adopting changes to the EWR reporting 

template. 

J. Correction to the Definition of Other 

Safety Campaign 

The NPRM noted that an 

inconsistency in the definitions of 

‘‘other safety campaign’’ and ‘‘customer 

satisfaction campaign’’ in 49 CFR 579.4. 

The inconsistency resulted from a 

misplaced closed parenthetical in the 

definition of ‘‘other safety campaign.’’ In 

both terms, the parentheses are meant to 

clarify that the definition excludes 

certain materials distributed by a 

manufacturer that are unrelated to a 

defect. The parentheses in the definition 

of ‘‘customer satisfaction campaign’’ are 

located immediately proceeding the 

term ‘‘excluding’’ and immediately after 

the term ‘‘first sale.’’ The definition of 

‘‘customer satisfaction campaign’’ states 

in pertinent part: ‘‘Customer satisfaction 

campaign * * * means any 

communication by a manufacturer 

* * * relating to repair, replacement, or 

modification of a vehicle * * * the 

manner in which a vehicle or child 

restraint system is to be maintained or 

operated (excluding promotional and 

marketing materials, customer 

satisfaction surveys, and operating 

instructions or owner’s manuals that 

accompany the vehicle or child restraint 

system at the time of first sale); or 

advice or direction to a dealer or 

distributor to cease the delivery or sale 

of specified models of vehicles or 

equipment.’’ In the definition of ‘‘other 

safety campaign,’’ the closed 

parenthetical in the definition is not 

immediately following the term ‘‘first 

sale’’ as intended, but immediately after 

the word ‘‘equipment.’’ Thus, the 

definition of ‘‘other safety campaign’’ 

currently reads in pertinent part: ‘‘Other 

safety campaign means an action in 

which a manufacturer communicates 

with owners and/or dealers in a foreign 

country with respect to conditions 

* * * that relate to safety (excluding 

promotional and marketing materials, 

customer satisfaction surveys, and 

operating instructions or owner’s 

manuals that accompany the vehicle or 

child restraint system at the time of first 

sale; or advice or direction to a dealer 

or distributor to cease the delivery or 

sale of specified models of vehicles or 

equipment).’’ To correct this 

inconsistency, we proposed that the 

closed parenthesis in the definition of 

‘‘other safety campaign’’ should be 

moved to immediately after the term ‘‘of 

first sale’’ to be consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘customer satisfaction 

campaign.’’ We did not receive any 

comments opposing the proposed 

change. Accordingly, the amendment to 

the definition of ‘‘other safety 

campaign’’ is adopted as proposed. 

K. Lead Time 

NHTSA proposed a one (1) calendar 

year lead time for manufacturers to 

adopt to the proposed changes to the 

EWR regulation. The amendments 

proposed requiring sufficient lead time 

included requiring quarterly EWR 

reports from all bus manufacturers, 

consistent product naming, reporting 

light vehicle types, reporting additional 

light vehicle components and requiring 

fuel and/or propulsion identification. 

For the amendments proposing to raise 

the EWR reporting thresholds for light 

vehicles and trailers, we proposed 30 

day effective dates. 

We received comments from the 

Alliance, AIAM and TTMA, on our 

proposed lead time, but those comments 

were, in large part, responsive to the 

proposals that would require 

manufacturers to change their IT 

systems and the EWR templates for 

reporting. Those proposals are not being 

adopted in today’s final rule. Other than 

TTMA, which agreed with our proposed 

lead times, we did not receive any 

comments on our proposed lead time for 

amendments to the EWR reporting 

thresholds. 

Because bus manufacturers will need 

time to install systems or modify 

existing systems to meet the 

amendments adopted in this final rule, 

the effective date of the reporting 

requirement for bus manufacturers 

producing 100 or more buses per year 

but not currently required to report 

comprehensive data will be one year 

from today’s date. Accordingly, for these 

bus manufacturers, the first quarterly 

EWR reports that must be filed are for 

the quarter in which this requirement 

becomes effective. For all other 

amendments adopted by today’s final 

rule, the effective date will be 30 days 

from today’s date. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47753 

L. Amendments to Information Required 

To Be Submitted in a Part 573 Defect or 

Noncompliance Information Report 

Under the Safety Act, manufacturers 

must notify the agency if either the 

manufacturer decides or the agency 

determines that a safety-related defect or 

noncompliance with a Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard exists in a 

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment. See 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

30119. NHTSA has significant 

discretion to specify the contents of this 

notice. 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). NHTSA’s 

regulation governing content of defect or 

noncompliance notices submitted to 

NHTSA is located at 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. Among 

other things, Part 573 delineates the 

information to be contained in the 

notification to NHTSA in section 573.6. 

The December 2008 NPRM identified 

two additional types of information that, 

if provided in a Part 573 Defect or 

Noncompliance Information Report, 

would further assist the agency and the 

public to identify vehicle components 

or motor vehicle equipment involved in 

a recall. One proposal would amend 

subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require that 

tire manufacturers submit a list of 

unique Tire Identification Numbers 

(TINs) or a range of TINs corresponding 

to recalled tires. The NPRM also 

proposed amending 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to 

require manufacturers to identify the 

country of origin of a recalled 

component. To implement the proposed 

amendment for TIN data, we proposed 

changing section 573.9 to allow TINs to 

be submitted as an attachment to an 

e-mail or by upload to NHTSA’s 

ARTEMIS database. These are discussed 

in more detail below. 

1. Amendment to Subsection 

573.6(c)(2)(iii) 

Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) requires the 

manufacturer of a defective item of 

motor vehicle equipment to identify the 

item containing the defect and give 

other identifying information. 

Specifically, subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) 

requires manufacturers to identify the 

equipment by the generic name of the 

component (tires, child seating systems, 

axles, etc.), part number, size and 

function if applicable, the inclusive 

dates (month and year) of manufacture 

if available and any other information 

necessary to describe the items. 

In tire recalls, tire manufacturers 

generally provide the brand name, 

model name, size of the recalled tire, 

and the applicable build dates. Build 

dates provide limited assistance to 

consumers seeking to determine if a tire 

is subject to a recall because there is no 

‘‘build date’’ on a tire. Rather, the tire 

build date (actually, the week in which 

a tire was made) is encoded within the 

Tire Identification Number (TIN) 

molded on the tire sidewall. 

Accordingly, we proposed amending 49 

CFR 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require tire 

manufacturers to submit a list of all 

unique TINs for defective tires. If 

providing all unique TINs would prove 

too costly, we proposed that tire 

manufacturers could provide a range of 

TINs. 

Two commenters addressed this 

proposal. RMA and Safety Research & 

Strategies, Inc. (SRS) expressed support 

for requiring manufacturers to identify 

the TINs, or range of TINs, in Part 573 

reports. RMA noted that requiring 

manufacturers to provide a complete 

listing of TINs and/or a range of TINs in 

573 reports is not a significant burden 

and that many manufacturers already do 

so. We confirmed RMA’s statement. 

Many tire manufacturers do provide the 

range of TINs for recalled tires in their 

Part 573 reports. RMA requested that 

NHTSA allow manufacturers the 

flexibility to provide TIN information as 

either a complete list or a range, 

depending on the nature of the recall at 

hand. 

We have considered the comments 

and are adopting the requirement that 

TIN information be provided in the 573 

report for a tire recall. We have also 

decided to require that manufacturers 

provide this information as a range. A 

range of TINs will be easier for the 

agency to process and integrate into its 

data systems and offers fewer 

opportunities for errors. 

2. Amendment to Section 49 CFR 573.9 

In order to facilitate the submission of 

TINs with a manufacturer’s Part 573 

Report, we proposed amending section 

573.9 to provide for the submission of 

unique TINs in an electronic format that 

can be e-mailed or submitted through 

the Internet. Because today’s final rule 

requires a range of TINs, we have 

decided against amending section 573.9. 

Our proposal amending section 573.9 

would have facilitated the submission of 

unique TINs, which could consist of 

many thousands of individual TINs, 

depending on the size of the tire recall. 

Providing a range of TINs does not 

present the same challenges as 

submitting or processing a large 

database of unique TINs. A range can be 

submitted within a Part 573 Report. 

Accordingly, we have decided not to 

adopt the proposal amending section 

573.9. 

3. Amendments to Subsection 

573.6(c)(2)(iv) 

NHTSA also proposed amending 

subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv). That 

subsection concerns the identification of 

the manufacturer that supplies the 

defective or noncompliant component 

to the manufacturer reporting the defect 

to NHTSA. It requires the reporting 

manufacturer to identify the component 

and the manufacturer of the component 

by name, address and telephone 

number. 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2)(iv). If the 

reporting manufacturer does not know 

the identity of the manufacturer of the 

component, it must identify the entity 

from which it was obtained. Id. 

Increasing globalization of the motor 

vehicle industry has made identifying 

the country of origin of recalled 

components more difficult. Information 

provided in a Part 573 Report may only 

identify a distributor’s location and not 

reveal the location of manufacture. It is 

important for the agency to know where 

a recalled component is fabricated or 

assembled so NHTSA can monitor 

imported products. 

Therefore, we proposed amending 

subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to require 

reporting manufacturers to provide a 

non-compliant or defective component’s 

country of origin. The country of origin 

for this purpose is where assembly or 

manufacture is completed. Accordingly, 

we proposed amending subsection 

573.6(c)(2)(iv) to add the phrase ‘‘and its 

country of origin (i.e., final place of 

manufacture or assembly)’’ immediately 

following ‘‘shall identify the 

component.’’ 

We received several comments on this 

proposal. TTMA objected to the 

proposal as overly burdensome. The 

organization states that motor vehicles 

are comprised of hundreds of parts from 

many vendors that may reside in the 

U.S., but whose manufacturing facilities 

may be overseas. It notes that a 

reporting manufacturer may not be 

aware a component was imported. 

TTMA added that a recalling 

manufacturer is responsible for 

corrective action and a part’s country of 

origin is irrelevant. 

NHTSA does not agree with the 

TTMA’s assessment. While some motor 

vehicles are comprised of parts supplied 

by many different vendors with overseas 

and domestic production facilities, a 

vehicle manufacturer can discern, or 

should, in the agency’s view, be able to 

discern, where the component was 

completed. It is not unreasonable for 

vehicle manufacturers to know and then 

report where the components of their 

products are made. A vehicle 

manufacturer’s responsibility for taking 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47754 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

corrective action for the defect or 

noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 

30102(b)(1)(F), (G)) does not limit the 

manufacturer’s reporting obligation. As 

indicated in the NPRM, the agency is 

using this information to better 

understand the origin of defective and 

noncompliant components, so we can 

appropriately focus enforcement efforts. 

Both the Motor & Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and 

the Alliance commented that they did 

not have objections to the country of 

origin requirement. Both trade 

associations, however, commented they 

were concerned that manufacturers may 

not be able to meet the short timeframe 

for submitting that information. The 

NPRM proposed adding the country of 

origin requirement to subsection 

573.6(c)(2)(iv) since, at present, that 

subsection requires manufacturers to 

supply the name and address of the 

component’s manufacturer where the 

recall concerns a defective or 

noncompliant component produced by 

another manufacturer. Subsection (c)(2), 

however, requires information to be 

provided when a defect or 

noncompliance report is first filed. See 

49 CFR 573.6(b). Defect and 

noncompliance reports must be filed 

within five (5) working days after a 

manufacturer a defect or noncompliance 

determination. Id. 

MEMA suggested that the requirement 

be revised to indicate that country of 

origin information must be provided ‘‘if 

available’’ at the time the initial report 

is filed. It further suggested that if the 

information is not available at the time 

of first filing, manufacturers should be 

allowed to provide that information in 

a supplemental 573 report. Id. 

The Alliance asked that 

manufacturers have the option to 

indicate the country of origin is 

unknown when the 573 report is filed. 

It noted that this is similar to a clause 

in 573.6(c)(2)(iv) permitting 

manufacturers that do not know the 

identity of the manufacturer of a 

recalled component to identify the 

vendor of the component instead. 

However, the Alliance’s proposal would 

not require manufacturers to ultimately 

identify the country of origin. 

We are modifying the proposal such 

that manufacturers do not need to 

submit the country of origin in their 

initial Part 573 Reports, but must 

supplement their Part 573 Reports once 

they obtain country of origin 

information. Manufacturers may need 

more than five (5) working days to 

ascertain the country of origin of a 

component. Nonetheless, manufacturers 

need to undertake all reasonable efforts 

to obtain this information and provide 

it to the agency in an expeditious 

manner. We are rejecting the Alliance’s 

suggested change to permit a 

manufacturer to indicate a lack of 

knowledge because we believe country 

of origin information to be important at 

identifying and getting to the source of 

the problem. We do not believe allowing 

manufacturers to simply indicate their 

lack of knowledge regarding country of 

origin—without any expectation that 

they do anything further—will be 

useful. 

Accordingly, we are amending 49 CFR 

573.6(c)(2)(iv) to require reporting 

manufacturers to identify a recalled 

component’s country of origin (i.e., final 

place of manufacture or assembly), and 

the manufacturer and/or assembler of 

the component by name, business 

address, and business telephone 

number. If the reporting manufacturer 

does not know the country of origin of 

the component, it must provide that 

information once it becomes available. 

V. Privacy Act Statement 

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) or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines as ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of 

the rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking is not 

considered significant. Therefore, this 

document was not reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 

agencies to evaluate the potential effects 

of their proposed and final rules on 

small businesses, small organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Today’s EWR amendments affect 314 

manufacturers (32 light vehicle 

manufacturers, 219 trailer 

manufacturers, 11 motorcycle 

manufacturers, 37 medium-heavy 

vehicle manufacturers and 15 bus 

manufacturers). The rule would relieve 

reporting burdens currently imposed on 

some light vehicle, medium-heavy 

vehicle, motorcycle and trailer 

manufacturers and impose modest new 

burdens on the bus manufacturers. In 

order to determine if any of these 

manufacturers are small entities under 

the RFA, NHTSA reviewed the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. Under those 

criteria, manufacturers of light vehicles, 

medium and heavy trucks, buses, or 

motor vehicle bodies are classified as a 

small business if they have fewer than 

1,000 employees. For trailer and 

motorcycle manufacturers, the company 

must have fewer than 500 employees to 

be considered a small business. All 

employees from the parent company 

and its subsidiaries are considered 

when determining the number of 

employees. 

Based on our application of these 

criteria (for details of our analysis, see 

our Final Regulatory Evaluation in the 

docket of this rulemaking), NHTSA has 

concluded that the majority of the light 

vehicle manufacturers and almost all of 

the 219 trailer manufacturers that would 

be relieved of quarterly reports by this 

rule (except for instances of fatalities) 

are small businesses. In addition, we 

believe that the majority of the 11 

motorcycle and 37 medium-heavy 

vehicle manufacturers are small 

businesses. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47755 

18See 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996). 

For the bus category, 20 bus 

manufacturers currently submit 

quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. We 

estimate that an additional 15 bus 

manufacturers will be required to 

submit quarterly EWR reports under 

today’s final rule. Based on our review 

of publicly available information, we 

estimate that 10 of those 15 bus 

manufacturers are small businesses 

having fewer than 1,000 employees. In 

our view, 10 small businesses out of a 

total of 15 entities (66.7 percent) 

constitute a substantial number. 

To determine whether the final rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on the small bus companies, we 

look at our estimated cost of the 

proposal (an annual reporting cost of 

$16,256 per average company and a one 

time start-up cost of $3,500 per 

company) and compare that to the 

revenues of the company (which would 

include the parent company and its 

subsidiaries). The smallest bus company 

that is not a subsidiary of a larger 

company appears to be Ebus, Inc., with 

45 employees. Ebus, Inc. reportedly has 

sales revenues of approximately 

$600,000. The cost of this rulemaking 

per company divided by Ebus, Inc. 

revenue is approximately 2.7 percent, 

which the agency does not consider to 

be a significant economic impact. 

For the light vehicle, medium-heavy 

vehicle, motorcycle and trailer 

manufacturers affected by this final rule, 

we estimate a cost savings. Even though 

we do not have revenue estimates for 

these manufacturers, these cost savings 

are not economically significant. 

The defect and noncompliance 

amendments to Part 573 are also not 

anticipated to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. The 

changes to the tire reporting 

requirements of the tire identification 

number affect tire manufacturers. We 

are unaware of any tire manufacturers 

that are considered small businesses. 

Even if there were small tire 

manufacturers, the cost per recall of 

reporting the range of TINs of $1,126 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on them. The country of origin 

requirements potentially affect small 

businesses, however, the annual 

economic impact to determine the 

country of origin of its product in 

question is small and the impact on any 

one business is also small. Of the 

average 650 motor vehicle safety recalls 

per year, we estimate that the company 

will need to investigate the country of 

origin of its products in 10 percent of 

the recalls. Out of the 65 recalls affected 

per year, only a few would be 

conducted by small businesses, and at 

an estimated cost of $590 each, the 

economic impact is not significant. 

In sum, while today’s EWR 

amendments affect a substantial number 

of small businesses (potentially 32 light 

vehicle manufacturers, 37 medium/ 

heavy vehicle manufacturers, 10 bus 

manufacturers, 219 trailer 

manufacturers and 11 motorcycle 

manufacturers), the agency believes that 

the final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on those entities. In 

addition, the amendments to Part 573 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

businesses. Accordingly, I certify that 

this final rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 on 

‘‘Federalism’’ requires us to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

‘‘regulatory policies that have 

federalism implications.’’ The Executive 

Order defines this phrase to include 

regulations ‘‘that have substantial direct 

effects 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.’’ The 

agency has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132 and has determined that it will 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant consultation 

with State and local officials or the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. The changes adopted 

in this document only affect a rule that 

regulates the manufacturers of motor 

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 

which does not have 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation with base year of 1995). 

Adjusting this amount by the implicit 

gross domestic product price deflator for 

the year 2007 results in $130 million 

(119.682 ÷ 92.106 = 1.30). This final rule 

would not result in expenditures by 

State, local or tribal governments of 

more than $130 million annually. The 

final rule would result in an annual 

savings of approximately $4.45 million. 

The Final Rule promulgating the EWR 

regulation did not have unfunded 

mandates implications. 67 FR 49263 

(July 30, 2002). 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ 18 the agency has 

considered whether this proposed rule 

would have any retroactive effect. We 

conclude that it would not have a 

retroactive or preemptive effect, and 

judicial review of it may be obtained 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section 

does not require that a petition for 

reconsideration be filed prior to seeking 

judicial review. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The collection of information 

associated with Part 579 is titled 

‘‘Reporting of Information and 

Documents About Potential Defects’’ 

and has been assigned OMB Control 

Number 2127–0616. At present, OMB is 

reviewing NHTSA’s request for an 

extension of approval to collect this 

information. Based on Part 579 as 

presently written, NHTSA has estimated 

that the collection of information will 

result in 2,355 responses, with a total of 

82,391 burden hours on affected 

manufacturers. 

Today’s final rule will reduce the 

reporting burden on manufacturers 

associated with Part 579. NHTSA 

believes that the changes adopted by 

today’s final rule will result in a 

reduction of 34,570 burden hours on 

those reporting. The reduction in 

burden hours was calculated by 

separating the type of reports that 

manufacturers are required to submit 

under EWR into two groups, A and B. 

Regardless of industry type, Group A 

reports include reports that all 

manufacturers are required to submit 

under EWR, if they meet the specific 

industry reporting threshold. Group B 

reports are reports that not all 

manufacturers are required to submit 

even if they meet the specific industry 

threshold. Our calculation follows: 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47756 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

19As noted in the preamble, many tire 

manufacturers provide the range of TINs for 

recalled tires in their Part 573 reports. The 

requirement of providing a TIN range for recalled 

tires will not increase the burden hours for the 

collection because, whether they reported it or not 

in the past, manufacturers must determine a TIN 

range in order to identify the recall population. 

Group A Reports 

[In hours] 

At present 

(hours) 

NPRM 

(hours) 

Change 

(hours) 

Claims and notices of injury/fatality ....................................................................................... 508.9 507 .98 ¥0 .92 

Property damage ................................................................................................................... 1200 .6 1195 .1 ¥5 .5 

Field reports ........................................................................................................................... 12,691 .5 12,637 .83 ¥53 .67 

Foreign Death claims ............................................................................................................. 18 17 .75 0 .25 

Total change ................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥60 

Bus Manufacturers—NHTSA 

estimates that bus manufacturers will 

file one additional claim and notice of 

injury/fatality reports a year, which will 

require 5 minutes to process. The 

agency estimates there will be no 

additional reports on property damage. 

Furthermore, an estimated 8 additional 

manufacturer field reports will be filed, 

for a total of 40 minutes. We estimate 

there will be no additional foreign death 

claim reports. NHTSA estimates there 

will be an additional 9 reports or 0.75 

burden hours on bus manufacturers. 

In sum, for Group A reports, NHTSA 

estimates that today’s final rule results 

in a total reduction of 59.25 burden 

hours a year (0.75 additional burden 

hours minus 60 hours of reduced 

burden on manufacturers). 

Group B Reports 

Group B reports consist of warranty 

claims, consumer complaints, and 

dealer field reports. Under the final rule, 

the number of manufacturers reporting 

on light vehicles will be reduced from 

62 to 30 (a reduction of 32 

manufacturers), which results in 678.9 

less burden hours. The number of bus 

manufacturers reporting will increase 

from 20 to 35 (an addition of 15 

manufacturers), which results in an 

increase of 198.9 burden hours. The 

number of trailer manufacturers will 

decrease from 280 to 61 (a reduction of 

219 trailer manufacturers), which 

results in 580.8 fewer burden hours. The 

number of motorcycle manufacturers 

will decrease from 23 to 12 (a reduction 

of 11 motorcycle manufacturers), which 

results in 58.4 fewer burden hours. In 

addition, the number of medium/heavy 

vehicle manufacturers will be reduced 

from 66 to 29 (a reduction of 37 

manufacturers), which results in 490.7 

fewer burden hours. 

Thus, NHTSA estimates there will be 

a reduction of 1,609 burden hours on 

vehicle manufacturers for Group B 

reports. 

Computer Maintenance Burden Hours 

In addition to processing time, several 

industry types will see a reduction in 

their computer maintenance burden. As 

a result of the amendments adopted in 

today’s final rule, 30 fewer light vehicle 

manufacturers will report quarterly 

EWR reports, which results in 11,104 

fewer computer maintenance burden 

hours (32 × 347 burden hours per 

manufacturer). In addition, there will be 

37 fewer medium/heavy vehicle 

manufacturers reporting, resulting in 

3,200.5 fewer computer maintenance 

burden hours (37 × 86.5 burden hours 

per manufacturers). Further reductions 

will be seen in the motorcycle industry. 

There will be 11 fewer motorcycle 

manufacturers reporting, resulting in 

951.5 fewer computer maintenance 

burden hours (11 × 86.5 burden hours 

per manufacturer). Also, there will be 

219 fewer trailer manufacturers 

reporting, which results in 18,943.5 

fewer computer maintenance burden 

hours (219 × 86.5 burden hours per 

manufacturer). There will be 15 more 

bus manufacturers submitting quarterly 

EWR reports, or 15 × 86.52 burden 

hours per manufacturer, for a total 

increase of +1,297.8 more burden hours 

on bus manufacturers. Thus, under 

today’s final rule, there will be an 

overall reduction of 32,902 burden 

hours on industry resulting from 

computer maintenance. 

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS ON INDUSTRY

FOR EWR AMENDMENTS IN THE

FINAL RULE

Burden hours 

Group A Reports .................. ¥59 

Group B Reports .................. ¥1,609 

Computer Maintenance Reports .................................. ¥32,902 

Total ............................... ¥34,570 

Based on the foregoing, NHTSA 

believes industry will incur 34,570 

fewer burden hours a year in EWR 

reporting to NHTSA. 

Part 573’s information collection is 

assigned OMB Control Number 2127– 

0004, and was recently approved on 

October 9, 2008. At the time of 

approval, NHTSA estimated the 

requirements of Part 573 necessitate 

21,370 burden hours per year. 

The revisions to Part 573 as a result 

of this final rule do not change the 

scope of those manufacturers’ obligation 

to notify NHTSA of a defect or 

noncompliance. Also, the new 

requirement to provide a TIN range for 

tire recalls does not affect the burden 

hours associated with Part 573’s 

information collection.19

The new component country of origin 

requirement added to Part 573, 

however, may potentially have a slight 

impact on the burden hours associated 

with Part 573’s information collection. 

Under the current information 

collection, we estimate that 650 recalls, 

on average, are processed a year. We 

estimate that possibly ten percent of the 

recalls processed each year will require 

the reporting manufacturer to obtain the 

country of origin. Accordingly, we 

calculate that the new component 

country of origin requirement may 

result in an additional 33 (rounded up 

from 32.5) burden hours (650 recalls × 

10 percent ÷ 2). 

In summary, this rulemaking reduces 

the burden on industry by over 34,000 

burden hours. 

G. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 applies to any 

rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47757 

Today’s final rule is not economically 

significant. 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in or about April and October 

of each year. You may use the RIN 

contained in the heading at the 

beginning of this document to find this 

action in the Unified Agenda. 

I. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. In the NPRM, we requested 

comment regarding our application of 

the principles of plain language in the 

proposal. We did not receive any 

comments on this issue. 

J. Data Quality Act 

Section 515 of the FY 2001 Treasury 

and General Government 

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106–554, 

section 515, codified at 44 U.S.C. 3516 

historical and statutory note), 

commonly referred to as the Data 

Quality Act, directed OMB to establish 

government-wide standards in the form 

of guidelines designed to maximize the 

‘‘quality,’’ ‘‘objectivity,’’ ‘‘utility,’’ and 

‘‘integrity’’ of information that Federal 

agencies disseminate to the public. As 

noted in the EWR final rule (67 FR 

45822), NHTSA has reviewed its data 

collection, generation, and 

dissemination processes in order to 

ensure that agency information meets 

the standards articulated in the OMB 

and DOT guidelines. The changes 

adopted by today’s final rule would 

alleviate some of the burden for 

manufacturers to provide EWR reports 

by reducing the reporting requirement 

on light vehicle manufacturers and 

trailer manufacturers. Where the final 

rule is requiring additional reporting by 

manufacturers, the new requirement 

will serve to improve the quality of the 

data NHTSA receives under the EWR 

rule, enabling the agency to be more 

efficient and productive in proactively 

searching for potential safety concerns 

as mandated through the TREAD Act. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 

579 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 573 and 

579 as set forth below: 

PART 573—DEFECT AND 

NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY 

AND REPORTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 573 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 

CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. 

■ 2. Amend § 573.6 by revising 

paragraphs (c) (2) (iii) and (iv) to read 

as follows: 

§ 573.6 Defect and noncompliance 

information report. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) In the case of items of motor 

vehicle equipment, the identification 

shall be by the generic name of the 

component (tires, child seating systems, 

axles, etc.), part number (for tires, a 

range of tire identification numbers, as 

required by 49 CFR 574.5), size and 

function if applicable, the inclusive 

dates (month and year) of manufacture 

if available and any other information 

necessary to describe the items. 

(iv) In the case of motor vehicles or 

items of motor vehicle equipment in 

which the component that contains the 

defect or noncompliance was 

manufactured by a different 

manufacturer from the reporting 

manufacturer, the reporting 

manufacturer shall identify the 

component and, if known, the 

component’s country of origin (i.e. final 

place of manufacture or assembly), the 

manufacturer and/or assembler of the 

component by name, business address, 

and business telephone number. If the 

reporting manufacturer does not know 

the identity of the manufacturer of the 

component, it shall identify the entity 

from which it was obtained. If at the 

time of submission of the initial report, 

the reporting manufacturer does not 

know the country of origin of the 

component, the manufacturer shall 

ascertain the country of origin and 

submit a supplemental report with that 

information once it becomes available. 

* * * * * 

PART 579—REPORTING OF 

INFORMATION AND 

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT 

POTENTIAL DEFECTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 579 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102–103, 30112, 

30117–121, 30166–167; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 4. Amend § 579.4 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Other safety campaign’’ in 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 579.4 Terminology. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

Other safety campaign means an 

action in which a manufacturer 

communicates with owners and/or 

dealers in a foreign country with respect 

to conditions under which motor 

vehicles or equipment should be 

operated, repaired, or replaced that 

relate to safety (excluding promotional 

and marketing materials, customer 

satisfaction surveys, and operating 

instructions or owner’s manuals that 

accompany the vehicle or child restraint 

system at the time of first sale); or 

advice or direction to a dealer or 

distributor to cease the delivery or sale 

of specified models of vehicles or 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Reporting of Early 

Warning Information 

■ 5. Amend § 579.21 by revising the 

section heading and by revising the first 

sentence of the introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 579.21 Reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of 5,000 or more light 

vehicles annually. 

For each reporting period, a 

manufacturer whose aggregate number 

of light vehicles manufactured for sale, 

sold, offered for sale, introduced or 

delivered for introduction in interstate 

commerce, or imported into the United 

States, during the calendar year of the 

reporting period or during each of the 

prior two calendar years is 5,000 or 

more shall submit the information 

described in this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 579.22 by 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Revising the introductory text; and 

■ c. Revising the introductory text to 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 579.22 Reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of 100 or more buses, 

manufacturers of 500 or more emergency 

vehicles and manufacturers of 5,000 or 

more medium-heavy vehicles (other than 

buses and emergency vehicles) annually. 

For each reporting period, a 

manufacturer whose aggregate number 

of buses manufactured for sale, sold, 

offered for sale, introduced or delivered 

for introduction in interstate commerce, 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
47758 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

or imported into the United States, 

during the calendar year of the reporting 

period or during either of the prior two 

calendar years is 100 or more shall 

submit the information described in this 

section. For each reporting period, a 

manufacturer whose aggregate number 

of emergency vehicles (ambulances and 

fire trucks) manufactured for sale, sold, 

offered for sale, introduced or delivered 

for introduction in interstate commerce, 

or imported into the United States, 

during the calendar year of the reporting 

period or during either of the prior two 

calendar years is 500 or more shall 

submit the information described in this 

section. For each reporting period, a 

manufacturer whose aggregate number 

of medium-heavy vehicles (a sum that 

does not include buses or emergency 

vehicles) manufactured for sale, sold, 

offered for sale, introduced or delivered 

for introduction in interstate commerce, 

or imported into the United States, 

during the calendar year of the reporting 

period or during either of the prior two 

calendar years is 5,000 or more shall 

submit the information described in this 

section. For paragraphs (a) and (c) of 

this section, the manufacturer shall 

submit information separately with 

respect to each make, model, and model 

year of bus, emergency vehicle and/or 

medium-heavy vehicle manufactured 

during the reporting period and the nine 

model years prior to the earliest model 

year in the reporting period, including 

models no longer in production. 

* * * * * 

(b) Information on incidents involving 

death or injury. For all buses, 

emergency vehicles and medium heavy 

vehicles manufactured during a model 

year covered by the reporting period 

and the nine model years prior to the 

earliest model year in the reporting 

period: 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 579.23 by revising the 

section heading and by revising the first 

sentence of the introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 579.23 Reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of 5,000 or more 

motorcycles annually. 

For each reporting period, a 

manufacturer whose aggregate number 

of motorcycles manufactured for sale, 

sold, offered for sale, introduced or 

delivered for introduction in interstate 

commerce, or imported into the United 

States, during the calendar year of the 

reporting period or during either of the 

prior two calendar years is 5,000 or 

more shall submit the information 

described in this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 579.24 by revising the 

section heading and by revising the first 

sentence of the introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 579.24 Reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of 5,000 or more trailers 

annually. 

For each reporting period, a 

manufacturer whose aggregate number 

of trailers manufactured for sale, sold, 

offered for sale, introduced or delivered 

for introduction in interstate commerce, 

or imported into the United States, 

during the calendar year of the reporting 

period or during either of the prior two 

calendar years is 5,000 or more shall 

submit the information described in this 

section. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 579.27 by revising the 

section heading to read as follows: 

§ 579.27 Reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of fewer than 100 buses 

annually, for manufacturers of fewer than 

500 emergency vehicles annually, for 

manufacturers of fewer than 5,000 light 

vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles (other 

than buses and emergency vehicles), 

motorcycles or trailers annually, for 

manufacturers of original equipment, and 

for manufacturers of replacement 

equipment other than child restraint 

systems and tires. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 579.29 by adding 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 579.29 Manner of reporting. 

(a) * * * 

(3) For each report required under 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of §§ 579.21 

through 579.26 of this part and 

submitted in the manner provided in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a 

manufacturer must state the make, 

model and model year of each motor 

vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment in terms that are identical to 

the statement of the make, model, model 

year of each motor vehicle or item of 

motor vehicle equipment provided in 

the manufacturer’s previous report. 

* * * * * 

Issued on: September 11, 2009. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–22365 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES