Document ID: NHTSA-2008-0169-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Early Warning Reporting Regulations
Posted Date: 2008-12-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 74101-74123]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05de08-27]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0169; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AK28

 
Early Warning Reporting Regulations

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to certain provisions of the 
early warning reporting (EWR) rule published pursuant to the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act, responds to a petition for rulemaking, and proposes 
amendments to information identifying products involved in a recall 
under 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and 
Reports. This document proposes to modify the threshold for submitting 
quarterly EWR reports for light vehicle, bus, and trailer 
manufacturers. It further proposes to require manufacturers to submit 
product names that are consistent from reporting quarter to quarter or 
advise NHTSA of changes; to add a requirement that light vehicle 
manufacturers specify the vehicle type and the fuel or propulsion 
system type of each model in their quarterly EWR submissions; to add a 
new component category for light vehicle manufacturers; and to correct 
the definition of ``other safety campaign.'' It also proposes to amend 
part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to add a 
requirement that tire manufacturers provide tire identification numbers 
of recalled tires and manufacturers provide the country of origin of a 
component involved in a recall.

DATES: Written comments regarding these proposed rule changes may be 
submitted to NHTSA and must be received on or before: February 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the 
following methods:
     Mail: Send Comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building, RM. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the 
U.S. Government regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Once here, follow the online instructions for submitting comments to an 
NPRM.
     Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by 
hand or courier, please do so at West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Whichever way you submit your comments, please remember to mention 
the docket number of this document within your correspondence. The 
docket may be accessed via phone at 202-366-9324.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to these proposed 
rule changes must include the agency name and docket number or 
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For 
detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information 
on the rulemaking process, see the Request for Comments heading of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Please note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking 
Analyses and Notices.

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

Introduction
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Background
    A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule
    B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports
    C. Scope of This Rulemaking
III. 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 and Motorcycles
    G. Response to the National Truck Equipment Association Petition 
for Rulemaking
    H. Data Consistency

[[Page 74102]]

    I. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
    J. New Component Category for Light Vehicles and Reporting by 
Fuel and/or Propulsion System
    K. Lead Time
    L. Technical Correction to the Definition of Customer 
Satisfaction Campaign and Other Safety Campaign
    M. Amendments to Information Required To Be Submitted in a Part 
573 Defect or Noncompliance Information Reports
IV. Request for Comments
V. Privacy Act Statement
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Proposed Regulatory Text

Introduction

    In October 2000, Congress enacted the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which the 
President signed into law on November 1, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-414). TREAD 
was, in part, a response to the controversy surrounding the recall of 
certain tires that had been involved in numerous fatal crashes. Up 
until that time, in its efforts to identify safety defects in motor 
vehicles and equipment, NHTSA relied primarily on its analysis of 
complaints from consumers and technical service bulletins from 
manufacturers. Congress concluded that NHTSA did not have access to 
data that may have provided an earlier warning of the safety defects 
that existed in the tires that were eventually recalled. Accordingly, 
the TREAD Act included a requirement that NHTSA prescribe rules 
establishing early warning reporting requirements.
    In response to the TREAD Act requirements, NHTSA issued rules (49 
CFR part 579; 67 FR 45822; 67 FR 63295) that, in addition to the 
information motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers were already 
required to provide, required that they provide certain additional 
information on foreign recalls and early warning indicators. 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.
    EWR reporting was phased in. The first quarterly EWR reports were 
submitted on or about December 1, 2003. However, actual copies of field 
reports were first submitted on or about July 1, 2004. 68 FR 35145, 
35148 (June 11, 2003). Accordingly, NHTSA has just over four years of 
experience using the EWR information.
    The Early Warning Division of the Office of Defects Investigation 
(ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of early warning data and 
documents submitted by manufacturers. Using both its traditional 
sources of information, such as complaints from vehicle owner 
questionnaires (VOQs) and manufacturers' own communications, as well as 
the additional quantum of information provided by EWR submissions, ODI 
conducts many investigations of potential safety defects and influences 
manufacturers to conduct recalls where defects have been determined to 
be present. In 2007, for example, manufacturers recalled more than 13 
million vehicles for defective conditions, a majority of which involved 
recalls influenced by ODI's investigations.
    The TREAD Act requires NHTSA periodically to review the EWR rule. 
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. When it had completed two full years of 
reporting in 2006, NHTSA began its review of the rule and presented 
proposed rule changes for public comment based on these evaluations.
    NHTSA is evaluating 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 (3) 
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 final rule 
amended the definition of fire to more accurately capture fire-related 
events. Id. Last, under the phase one final rule, the agency limited 
the requirement to update missing vehicle identification number (VIN)/
tire identification number (TIN) or components on incidents of death or 
injury to a period of no more than one year after NHTSA receives the 
initial report. 72 FR 29444.
    The majority of this document contains the second part of our 
evaluation of the EWR rule. This rulemaking addresses issues that 
required more analysis than those addressed in the first phase. In this 
phase, we address the threshold level for providing comprehensive 
quarterly EWR reports for certain industry categories. This required 
studying and assessing the quantity and quality of data that might be 
lost if the threshold is increased to particular levels and analyzing 
whether such a loss would have an appreciable effect on ODI's ability 
to identify possible safety defects.
    This document also contains proposals that amend part 573 Defect 
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to require further 
information that identifies the tire identification number (TIN) of all 
the tires within the scope of a recall by a tire manufacturer and 
identifies the country of origin of recalled components. In part 573, 
we also propose to add an optional method to submit the TINs by 
uploading them directly to ODI via ODI's Web site.

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The early warning reporting (EWR) rule requires certain 
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to submit 
information to NHTSA. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. Under today's 
proposal, the EWR reporting threshold would be modified for some 
categories of vehicle manufacturers and a new requirement would be 
added to require manufacturers to provide consistent naming conventions 
for their models that are consistent from quarter to quarter. In 
addition, we propose to add one component to the light vehicle 
reporting category and require light vehicle manufacturers to specify 
the vehicle type and the fuel and/or propulsion system type.

[[Page 74103]]

    Under the EWR rule, certain motor vehicle manufacturers and motor 
vehicle equipment manufacturers are required to report information and 
submit documents to NHTSA that could be used to identify safety-related 
defects. The amount and frequency of reporting required of a 
manufacturer is dependent upon the level of its annual production 
volume.
    The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of light vehicles and 
manufacturers of trailers to submit quarterly reports if they produce 
500 or more vehicles or trailers annually. Manufacturers of light 
vehicles or trailers that produce fewer than 500 vehicles or trailers 
annually do not submit quarterly reports. These manufacturers are 
required to submit a report to NHTSA when they receive a claim or 
notice identifying an incident that involves a death. 49 CFR 579.27. 
Today's proposed rule would raise the EWR threshold for light vehicle 
manufacturers and trailer manufacturers from 500 or more units to 5,000 
or more units. Manufacturers in the light vehicle and trailer 
categories producing 5,000 or more units annually would be required to 
report on a quarterly basis. Those light vehicle and trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 units per year would have a 
lower reporting burden, only being required to submit information 
related to incidents that involve a death.
    Similar to light vehicles and trailers, the EWR regulation requires 
manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles and buses to submit quarterly 
reports if they produce 500 or more vehicles annually. These 
manufacturers are required to report more comprehensive data on a 
quarterly basis, while those with a production volume below this 
threshold are required to submit information only on incidents that 
involve a death. Today's proposed rule would eliminate the reporting 
threshold for manufacturers of buses, which would require all 
manufacturers of buses to provide quarterly EWR reports.
    Today's proposed rule would add new requirements that would require 
vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide consistent naming 
conventions for their products that are consistent from quarter to 
quarter, 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.
    Today's proposed rule would add one new component to the light 
vehicle reporting category and add a requirement that manufacturers 
specify their fuel and/or propulsion system when providing model 
designations. The new component is electronic stability control. These 
two amendments are intended to capture new technologies that have been 
introduced to the light vehicle market.
    Last, today's proposed rule amends two subsections of section 573.6 
to add language that will require further information that identifies 
the tire identification number (TIN) of all the tires within the scope 
of a recall by a tire manufacturer and identifies the country of origin 
of recalled components in a manufacturer's Part 573 Defect or 
Noncompliance Information Report. Specifically, we are proposing to 
amend 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to add a requirement to report tire 
identification numbers (TINs) and 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to add a requirement 
to identify the country of origin of a component that is the subject of 
a recall. We also propose to add language to section 573.9 to 
facilitate the submission of reports affected by the proposal to 
require TINs.

II. 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, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m). 67 
FR 45822. This rule requires certain motor vehicle manufacturers and 
motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report information and submit 
documents to NHTSA that could be used to identify potential safety-
related defects.
    The EWR regulation divides manufacturers of motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment into two groups with different reporting 
responsibilities for reporting information. The first group consists of 
(a) larger vehicle manufacturers (manufacturers of 500 or more vehicles 
annually) that produce light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles and buses, 
trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) tire manufacturers that produce over a 
certain number per tire line; and (c) all manufacturers of child 
restraints. The first group must provide 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.
    On a quarterly basis, manufacturers in the first group must provide 
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 provide 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 on which manufacturers provide 
information vary depending upon the type of vehicle or equipment 
manufactured.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For instance, light vehicle manufacturers must provide 
reports on twenty (20) 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, medium-heavy vehicle and bus manufacturers 
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 (13) 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 (12) systems or 
components: Suspension, service brake system-hydraulic, 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 (4) 
systems or components: Buckle and restraint harness, seat shell, 
handle and base. Tire manufacturers must report on four (4) systems 
or components: Tread, sidewall, bead and other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general (not all of these requirements apply to manufacturers of 
child restraints or tires), manufacturers that provide comprehensive 
reports must provide information relating to:
     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,

[[Page 74104]]

malfunction, lack of durability or other performance problem of a motor 
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment).
    Most of the provisions summarized above (i.e., property damage 
claims, warranty claims, consumer complaints and field reports) require 
manufacturers to submit information 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, these manufacturers are required to submit 
copies of field reports, except field reports by dealers (referred to 
as ``non-dealer field reports'') and product evaluation reports.
    In contrast to the comprehensive quarterly reports provided by 
manufacturers in the first group, the second group of manufacturers 
does not have to provide quarterly reports. These manufacturers only 
submit information about a death incident when they receive a claim or 
notice of a death.

B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, manufacturers are required 
to provide notice to 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. The regulation implementing the 
manufacturer's requirement to provide notice to NHTSA is located at 49 
CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, 
which, among other things, requires manufacturers to provide reports 
(commonly referred to as Defect or Noncompliance reports, as the case 
may be) to NHTSA on defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment and noncompliances with motor vehicle safety standards 
prescribed under 49 CFR part 571. Section 573.6 specifies the 
information that manufacturers are required to submit to the agency and 
Section 573.9 specifies the address for submitting reports. An 
important element of the notice to NHTSA is the identification of the 
component containing the defect or noncompliance. Section 
573.6(c)(2)(iii) requires manufacturers to identify items of motor 
vehicle equipment by the generic name of the component (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 information to describe 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 different manufacturer. In such a case, 
the reporting manufacturer must identify the component and the 
manufacturer of the component by name, business address, and business 
telephone number.

C. Scope of This Rulemaking

    The TREAD Act requires NHTSA periodically to review the EWR rule. 
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. After we gained two full years of 
reporting experience, we commenced our evaluation.
    NHTSA is evaluating the EWR rule in two phases. The first phase 
covered definitional issues and culminated in the final rule published 
on May 29, 2007. 72 FR 29435. Today's proposed rule is the culmination 
of the second phase of our evaluation.
    Today's proposed rule is limited in scope to the amendments to the 
EWR requirements and the part 573 notification requirements proposed in 
this NPRM, as well as logical outgrowths of the proposal. Excluding the 
proposed changes noted above in the summary section, NHTSA intends to 
leave the remaining current EWR regulations and part 573 regulations 
unchanged.

III. Discussion

A. Statutory Background on Early Warning and Notification Requirements

    Under the early warning reporting requirements 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 or 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. Specifically, section 30166(m)(3)(B) states:

    Other data.--As part of the final rule * * * the Secretary may, 
to the extent that such information may assist in the identification 
of defects related to motor vehicle safety 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. NHTSA may not impose 
undue burdens upon manufacturers, taking into account the cost incurred 
by manufacturers to report EWR data and the agency's ability to use the 
EWR data meaningfully to assist in the identification of safety 
defects. More specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D) provides:

    (D) Burdensome requirements.--In promulgating the final rule 
under paragraph (1), 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).

[[Page 74105]]

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, 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 in a particular class of 
vehicles or equipment.
     The proportion of manufacturers reporting in a particular 
class of vehicles or equipment.
     The number of vehicles or items of equipment 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 that the manufacturers have 
reported or would report.
     Whether the EWR data have been useful or may be useful in 
opening investigations into potential safety related defects and 
whether those investigations have resulted or may result in recalls.
     The effect that the reduction and or addition of EWR data 
would have on the quantity and quality of the data and ODI's ability to 
open investigations and identify possible safety-related 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 emphasize that the general approach of the EWR program is to 
collect very large amounts of data on numerous systems and components 
in a very wide range and volume of vehicles and, to a lesser degree, 
equipment, and for the agency to then systematically review 
information, with the end result being the identification of a 
relatively small number of potential safety problems, compared to the 
amount of data collected and reviewed. These data are considered along 
with other information collected by and available to the agency in 
deciding whether to open investigations.
    After extensive review of the EWR data currently collected, today's 
proposal would reduce overall the number of manufacturers that must 
provide comprehensive EWR submissions. The amount and usefulness of 
data that would no longer be required to be submitted would not be 
significant to NHTSA in assisting in the identification of safety 
related defects. Our proposal follows.

C. Light Vehicles

    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers that 
produce 500 or more vehicles per year to provide quarterly EWR reports 
to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.21. Light vehicle manufacturers that produce 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 light vehicle EWR reporting sector includes about 60 
manufacturers. These companies submit an immense amount of EWR data to 
NHTSA every quarter. For instance, in the third quarter of 2007, they 
submitted EWR data reflecting approximately 2,300 property damage 
claims, 11.7 million warranty claims, 600,000 consumer complaints and 
395,000 field reports \2\ on 169 million light vehicles. In general, 
these data consist of numerical tallies (aggregate data) for specified 
components and systems on light vehicles. In light of the large number 
of distinct models (products) and the number of reporting subcategories 
(see 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c)),\3\ the light vehicle data consist of 
over 200,000 potential product-components (the number of distinct 
models reported by light vehicle manufacturers multiplied by the number 
of components for which reporting is required in the EWR light vehicle 
category). In addition to the large amount of aggregate data, light 
vehicle manufacturers submitted approximately 20,000 copies of field 
reports in the third quarter of 2007. Also in the third quarter of 
2007, the agency received information on approximately 1,100 death and 
injury incidents, which consist of specific information for each 
incident, including the number of deaths and/or injuries, the state or 
foreign country where the incident occurred and the specified 
components, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A 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.
    \3\ See footnote 1 for a list of vehicle components or systems 
that light vehicle manufacturers must report on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA employs several methods to identify potential concerns in the 
data. For example, for the aggregate information, ODI undertakes data 
mining and trend analysis to search for outliers and trends in the 
data. Outliers usually relate to specific product-components for which 
there may be a spike in the EWR data within a particular model and 
quarter. Trend analysis looks at the EWR data over time, such as the 
historical frequency, the amount of variation in data, current trend 
and anticipated future values. For the death and injury information, 
ODI compares the current quarter data to previous quarters of data on 
incidents involving a death or injury. For the copies of field reports, 
ODI manually reviews the field reports to identify those related to 
potential safety concerns. If any of the EWR data raise a potential 
concern, ODI then reviews other information sources such as other EWR 
data, recalls, complaints/Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), 
technical service bulletins, Web-based technical sources, and other 
information sources that may be available. ODI may also send an 
information request to a manufacturer for additional information 
related to the manufacturer's EWR data. Based on the agency's 
assessment of the potential presence of a safety-related defect, ODI 
may then open an investigation.
    Since the first quarter of EWR reporting, EWR light vehicle data 
has assisted or prompted 48 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 resulted in 30 recalls 
involving more than 15 million units. A few of the investigations 
resulted in more than one recall. Many investigations ODI initiated in 
2007 and 2008 are ongoing so there is a potential for the number of 
recalls based on investigations prompted or assisted by EWR data to 
increase.

[[Page 74106]]

    In general, light vehicle manufacturers that produce a significant 
volume of vehicles submit substantial amounts of EWR data. On the other 
hand, light vehicle manufacturers that produce relatively small numbers 
of vehicles, albeit at or above the 500 or more vehicles annually, 
generally do not submit much EWR information per quarter. This appears 
to be related to their relatively low production volumes. These 
relatively low-volume light vehicle manufacturers' EWR reports on 
various components or systems not uncommonly amount to zero (0) or one 
(1) complaint, claim or field report for a particular model. In 
contrast, larger light vehicle manufacturers provide reports with far 
more and larger numbers.
    As NHTSA has observed in the past, the more robust the EWR data 
base, the better NHTSA is able to identify changes in trends or 
otherwise identify potential hazards. In contrast, the limited amount 
of EWR data from the relatively small light vehicle manufacturers is of 
little, if any, assistance to ODI in detecting potential safety-related 
defects. For example, a small light vehicle manufacturer contains zero 
(0) property damage claims for a particular product-component in a 
reporting quarter, then one (1) property damage claim the next quarter, 
followed by several quarters of zero (0) property damage claims. Using 
available methodologies, ODI cannot decipher possible trends that may 
be indicative of defects. ODI's reviews of the EWR submissions from the 
smaller-volume light vehicle manufacturers have not been productive in 
assisting it in identifying possible safety-related defects in light 
vehicles.
    NHTSA considered a reporting threshold level higher than 500 or 
more vehicles annually when the EWR rule was adopted. In the July 2002 
rule, we considered and rejected comments from industry that NHTSA set 
the threshold for triggering quarterly EWR reporting at 2,500 or 10,000 
vehicles annually. 67 FR 45832. At that time, the agency stated that 
``if experience shows that we do not get valuable information from 
relatively small vehicle manufacturers, we can and will adjust the 
threshold in the future.'' Id.
    A year and one-half later, the agency again addressed the threshold 
level for EWR reporting. On January 23, 2004, NHTSA published a Federal 
Register notice denying petitions for reconsideration from the 
following industry associations: The National Association of Trailer 
Manufacturers (NATM), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) 
and the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA). 69 FR 3292. 
These industry associations petitioned the agency to raise the 500 
annual vehicle production threshold for comprehensive EWR reporting, 
with NTEA and RVIA recommending 5,000 vehicles per year as the 
appropriate threshold. While we rejected raising the threshold at that 
time, we stated that ``if we find that the information submitted by 
relatively small vehicle manufacturers does not help in the prompt 
identification of safety defects, we will commence a rulemaking 
proceeding to adjust the reporting requirements appropriately.'' \4\ 69 
FR 3297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In late 2005 and early 2006, the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, National Truck Equipment Association and Truck 
Manufacturers Association all requested to have the vehicle 
reporting threshold raised to 5,000 units annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively believe that NHTSA's experience in reviewing 4 years 
of EWR reports provides a sufficient basis for adjustment of certain 
EWR reporting thresholds. Nonetheless, we are proceeding with some 
caution, as the agency should not act in a way that would meaningfully 
limit the agency's capabilities.
    We are proposing to raise the reporting threshold for light vehicle 
manufacturers in 49 CFR 579.21 to 5,000 vehicles per year from 500 
vehicles per year. This would reduce the number of reporting 
manufacturers from 60 to 30.
    Only three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) of all light vehicles are 
produced by manufacturers that make fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually. 
Almost all of the light vehicle EWR data is submitted by manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more vehicles annually. In the third quarter of 
2007, manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually 
reported only 0.2% (19,224 data points) of the total aggregate data in 
the third quarter of 2007.
    Furthermore, manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 light 
vehicles annually do not submit large numbers of copies of non-dealer 
field reports.\5\ Only two small volume light vehicle manufacturers 
have submitted copies of field reports. In 15 quarters of EWR 
reporting, these two manufacturers submitted a total of 61 copies of 
field reports. The information in these reports has not been used to 
identify a safety-related concern. In contrast, larger-volume light 
vehicle manufacturers submit hundreds or thousands of copies of field 
reports per quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Manufacturers are required to submit the number of product 
evaluation reports in their quarterly EWR reports, but are no longer 
required to submit hard copies of them to NHTSA. 72 FR 29435, 29437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past five (5) years, the vast majority of all safety-
related light vehicle recalls have been conducted by manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more vehicles annually. Between January 2003 and 
January 2008, there were a total of 646 light vehicle recalls. Of these 
recalls, 93 percent involved manufacturers producing 5,000 or more 
vehicles annually. More significantly, none of the EWR data submitted 
by light vehicle manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
annually prompted an investigation leading to one of these recalls. In 
fact, all of the ODI light vehicle investigations that were influenced 
by EWR data involved vehicles from manufacturers that produced 5,000 or 
more light vehicles annually. In the past five years, only two recalls 
pertaining to manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 light 
vehicles annually were influenced by ODI. These two recalls involved 
vehicles where ODI had information other than EWR data to prompt its 
investigations. One such recall involved handicap accessible vans in 
which the wheelchair securement retractor assemblies can fail resulting 
in the securement system not supporting the wheelchair in a crash 
(NHTSA Recall No. 04V-589). The other recall involved vans with Sure-
lok wheelchair securement systems that can fail resulting in injuries 
to the wheelchair occupant because the wheelchair may not be adequately 
secured in a crash (NHTSA Recall No. 06V075).
    If the proposed production reporting threshold of 5,000 or more 
vehicles is adopted, approximately 30 light vehicle manufacturers would 
no longer have to submit quarterly EWR reports. As noted above, the EWR 
data submitted by the relatively small volume light vehicle 
manufacturers is limited and has not yielded any assistance in the 
prompt identification of potential safety defects. Thus, ODI would lose 
very little data that would appear to be helpful to the program.
    Even though 30 light vehicle manufacturers will no longer report 
EWR data quarterly, NHTSA will still have an ability to monitor the 
vehicles made by these relatively small volume manufacturers for 
potential safety concerns. Those manufacturers under the proposed 
threshold will still be required to report information related to a 
death in a claim or a notice received by the manufacturer. NHTSA will 
also continue to receive the traditional screening information on these 
vehicles, such as VOQs. In the light vehicle category, NHTSA receives 
substantially

[[Page 74107]]

more VOQs from owners of light vehicles than any other industry sector 
in EWR.
    Raising the reporting threshold would also have the effect of 
reducing the EWR reporting burden on light vehicle manufacturers that 
currently produce 500 or more vehicles, but fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
annually. These manufacturers would no longer incur the costs 
associated with collecting and reporting comprehensive quarterly 
reports to NHTSA.
    Based upon the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.21 to 
raise the reporting threshold for light vehicle manufacturers from its 
current level of 500 or more vehicles produced annually to 5,000 or 
more vehicles produced annually. We seek comment on this proposed 
revised reporting threshold.

D. Trailers

    The EWR regulation requires trailer manufacturers that produce 500 
or more trailers annually to submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 
CFR 579.24. Trailer manufacturers that produce 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.
    Under the EWR rule, the agency receives a large amount of data 
related to trailers every quarter. Approximately 250 trailer 
manufacturers submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. For the third 
quarter of 2007, trailer manufacturers submitted approximately 180 
property damage claims, 51,000 warranty claims, 5,000 consumer 
complaints and 1,000 field reports on 14 million trailers. With a large 
number of distinct models, the trailer category consists of over 
1,800,000 potential product-components (the number of distinct models 
reported by trailer manufacturers multiplied by the number of 
components in EWR). In contrast to the large amount of electronic data 
submitted, trailer manufacturers provide limited data on deaths and 
injuries and copies of non-dealer field reports. The agency received 
approximately six (6) death and injury incidents and twenty (20) copies 
of non-dealer field reports for the third quarter of 2007.
    In order to review and analyze the EWR trailer data, ODI employs 
the same methods used to identify potential concerns in the light 
vehicle data. Like the EWR light vehicle data, the EWR trailer data is 
limited to the information in the possession of the manufacturer, which 
is then submitted to NHTSA. Smaller volume trailer manufacturers submit 
less data than the larger volume trailer manufacturers. Manufacturers 
that produce lower volumes of trailers generally do not collect much 
reportable EWR information per quarter. As a result of the limited 
amount of data they receive, the smaller manufacturers' EWR reports are 
mostly devoid of EWR data.
    The lack of data presents several challenges to ODI. Without the 
ability to statistically analyze such meager data in a meaningful way, 
the EWR data from the smaller trailer manufacturers must be reviewed 
manually. These reviews have not produced much in the way of assistance 
in the identification of any safety concerns with these smaller trailer 
manufacturers. Based upon the foregoing, we are proposing to raise the 
reporting threshold for the trailer category to 5,000 or more vehicles 
produced annually to ensure that our resources are used efficiently.
    As we discussed III.C above, a threshold level higher than 500 or 
more vehicles annually has been considered before by NHTSA. The January 
2004 rulemaking considered raising the trailer category reporting 
threshold to 5,000 or more trailers annually. In late 2006, NATM 
requested that the trailer category reporting threshold be raised to 
5,000 or more trailers produced annually. With trailers, our experience 
with four (4) full years of EWR reporting has shown that the EWR data 
provided by the relatively small volume trailer manufacturers has not 
yielded any assistance in the prompt identification of safety defects. 
Based upon this, we are proposing to raise the reporting threshold for 
the trailer category to the requested 5,000 or more trailers produced 
annually.
    While we propose to raise the threshold for the trailer category to 
5,000 or more trailers annually, we do not believe this elevated 
threshold will result in a meaningful reduction of EWR trailer data. 
Although raising the threshold for the trailer category to 5,000 
eliminates 190 trailer manufacturers from quarterly EWR reporting, our 
analysis indicates that the majority of the EWR trailer data that can 
be consistently analyzed is data submitted by trailer manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more trailers. Trailer manufacturers producing 5,000 
or more trailers account for nearly 80% of all trailer production 
volume. The majority of the aggregate trailer EWR data is also 
submitted by large volume trailer manufacturers. Trailer manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more trailers annually submit 70% of the aggregate 
trailer data. Additionally, compared to the other vehicles types, 
trailers manufacturers submit very few copies of non-dealer field 
reports. In total, trailer manufacturers have submitted 549 non-dealer 
field reports in fifteen (15) EWR quarters. Only 30% of non-dealer 
field reports have been submitted by manufacturers that produce fewer 
than 5,000 trailers a year. The majority of these field reports deal 
with non-safety issues such as: Paint issues, rusty rivets, and non-
structural sheet-metal cracks.
    While the potential reduction in EWR trailer production and 
aggregate data appear to be greater when compared to the light vehicle 
category, we do not believe that raising the trailer category reporting 
threshold will reduce our ability to identify safety related concerns 
with the EWR trailer data. This is based upon the type of EWR 
submissions that will be eliminated from EWR reporting by raising the 
threshold. While trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 
trailers annually submit 30% of the aggregate data, our analysis of 
these data indicates that the aggregate data are sparsely populated and 
lack consistency. With trailer manufacturers, this is due in large part 
to the way the smaller trailer manufacturers operate their businesses. 
Smaller volume manufacturers often produce numerous trailer models with 
small production runs. As a result, the aggregate data submitted for 
these models have many product-component fields with zeros (0) or ones 
(1) (in other words there are zero or very few claims of any kind 
related to these particular trailers). This limited amount of product-
component information is insufficient to establish a trend that would 
provide an early warning of a potential safety concern. As a result, 
these EWR data are of limited use to ODI as part of its efforts to 
analyze the EWR data for potential safety issues with smaller trailer 
manufacturers.
    Our analysis of EWR trailer data indicates that when ODI did 
identify a potential safety concern, with one exception, it always 
concerned a trailer manufacturer with annual production of 5,000 or 
more trailers. Our analysis found that 80% of potential safety concerns 
were contained within the EWR data supplied by those manufacturers that 
produce 5,000 or more trailers annually. For example, in the third 
quarter of 2006, there were five (5) potential safety concerns 
identified by ODI, with four (4) associated with manufacturers with an 
annual production level 5,000 or more. We identified one potential 
safety concern within the EWR data provided by trailer manufacturers 
producing between 2,500 and 4,999 trailers. We did not identify any 
concerns in the EWR data submitted by manufacturers producing fewer 
than

[[Page 74108]]

2,500 trailers. Ultimately, the concerns identified did not result in 
ODI opening a defects investigation.
    Our analysis of EWR trailer data for the last five (5) years of 
reporting indicates, on the one hand, that the EWR data for trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers are insufficient to 
yield data that are likely to lead to ODI opening a defects 
investigation. On the other hand, it appears that ODI's traditional 
screening tools have proven effective at identifying safety concerns in 
the smaller volume trailer category and leading to a defects 
investigation. Over the past five (5) years, EWR data submitted by 
trailer manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers annually have 
not influenced any ODI investigations. From January 2003 through 
January 2008, there were 421 trailer recalls. Almost 40 percent (160) 
of those recalls were conducted by trailer manufacturers that produce 
more than 5,000 trailers per year. There were 121 trailer recalls 
conducted by trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 
trailers per year. Of the 121 trailer recalls conducted by trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers, 43 of those recalls 
were influenced by ODI.
    If the proposed reporting threshold were adopted, approximately 190 
trailer manufacturers (72% of trailer manufacturers) would no longer 
have to submit quarterly EWR reports. As noted above, ODI would lose 
some EWR data, but the EWR trailer data that provide detailed, usable 
information on safety concerns will continue to be submitted by 
manufacturers that produce 5,000 or more trailers annually. Even though 
some trailer manufacturers would no longer submit quarterly reports, 
ODI will still have the ability to monitor trailers manufactured by 
small volume manufacturers for potential safety concerns. Those 
manufacturers who produce fewer than 5,000 trailers per year will be 
required to continue to report information related to a death and any 
associated injuries. ODI will also continue to receive the traditional 
investigative screening information on these trailers, such as 
technical service bulletins.
    Raising the reporting threshold would also have the effect of 
reducing the EWR reporting burden on scores of trailer manufacturers 
that currently produce 500 or more vehicles, but fewer than 5,000 
vehicles. These manufacturers will no longer have the costs associated 
with collecting and reporting comprehensive quarterly reports to NHTSA, 
without compromising NHTSA's ability to detect potential safety 
concerns.
    Based upon the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.24 to 
raise the reporting threshold for trailer manufacturers from its 
current level of 500 or more trailers annually to 5,000 or more 
trailers annually. We seek comment on our proposal to raise the 
reporting threshold for trailer manufacturers.

E. Buses

    The EWR regulation requires medium-heavy vehicle and bus 
manufacturers that produce 500 or more units annually to submit 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22. Currently, there are 
approximately 25 bus manufacturers submitting quarterly EWR reports to 
NHTSA. For the third quarter of 2007, bus manufacturers submitted, for 
the aggregate data, approximately 25 property damage claims, 290,000 
warranty claims, 3,000 consumer complaints and 10,400 field reports on 
800,000 buses. They also submitted 645 copies of field reports.
    In our view, there is a significant need to amend the threshold 
level of reporting for manufacturers of buses. Buses--whether school 
buses, transit buses, or motorcoaches--have a unique character compared 
to other vehicles. These vehicles carry more occupants than other 
vehicle types, which means that safety risks on a per-vehicle basis are 
potentially greater with regard to buses. One crash involving a bus may 
result in multiple fatalities and injuries. Because of the potential 
for increased fatalities and injuries from bus crashes, NHTSA has 
reconsidered how it views buses within the EWR framework.
    Today, we propose to eliminate the reporting threshold for buses 
because of the potential for multiple fatalities and injuries from a 
single crash. In our view, the safety consequences surrounding a single 
bus crash increase the urgency of identifying safety concerns at the 
earliest time possible. We believe that in the case of buses it is 
paramount to ensure that any potential safety issue relating to these 
vehicles is detected at an early stage. Several bus crashes over the 
last few years have led us to reconsider the importance of creating a 
special status for bus manufacturers in EWR, much like we treat 
manufacturers of child restraints (all manufacturers of child 
restraints must submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA, regardless of 
annual production). Some of the recent bus crashes that have caused us 
to rethink the status of bus manufacturers for the purposes of EWR 
reporting are:
     On April 18, 2005, a school bus crash in Arlington, 
Virginia resulted in one (1) fatality and fourteen (14) injuries.
     On September 23, 2005, a motor coach bus carrying nursing 
home residents fleeing from Hurricane Rita caught fire outside Dallas, 
Texas resulting in twenty-three (23) fatalities.
     On November 20, 2006, a school bus crash in Huntsville, 
Alabama resulted in four (4) fatalities and 34 injuries.
     On March 2, 2007, a charter bus plunged from an overpass 
in Atlanta, Georgia resulting in seven (7) fatalities and twenty-eight 
(28) injuries.
     On February 19, 2008, four (4) students were killed and 
fourteen (14) injured in a school bus crash in Minnesota.
     On February 24, 2008, a motor coach traveling north of 
Scranton, Pennsylvania crashed and flipped over injuring 40 people.
    While we do not assert or even imply that bus manufacturers were 
responsible for any of these crashes or that manufacturing or design 
defects played a causal role, we do believe that they demonstrate the 
scale of the consequences that could occur should a defect cause a 
crash. As a result, we believe that universal reporting by bus 
manufacturers will provide the agency with information that may 
identify safety concerns at an early stage to prevent future crashes.
    We believe that the potential scale of the per-vehicle risk 
outweighs the potential for limited EWR data from the smaller bus 
manufacturers. As we have done in evaluating the thresholds for all 
vehicle categories, we carefully considered factors such as the 
likelihood of capturing data that will be useful in opening 
investigations in to safety defects and the safety risks associated 
with buses, balanced against the industry's burden of submitting the 
data and the agency's burden of reviewing the data. The risk to motor 
vehicle safety presented by just one bus crash warrants the collection 
and analysis of comprehensive EWR data from all bus manufacturers.
    The need to eliminate the threshold for buses is illustrated by the 
number of recalls conducted in the last (5) years by bus manufacturers 
that produce fewer than 500 buses annually. Since 2003, there have been 
a total of 352 recalls totaling nearly one (1) million buses, 
regardless of production by the manufacturer. Bus manufacturers that 
produce fewer than 500 buses annually conducted 39 recalls in the same 
period for a total of nearly 8,000 buses. On average, 1,600 buses are 
recalled annually by manufacturers that produce fewer than 500 buses 
annually. Because

[[Page 74109]]

each bus transports a sizeable number of passengers, the impact of 
1,600 buses could potentially affect ten of thousands of passengers per 
year. Without comprehensive early warning reports from bus 
manufacturers that produce fewer than 500 buses annually, ODI does not 
have data to promptly identify possible safety defects in buses 
produced by these low production bus manufacturers even though those 
vehicles transport large numbers of passengers annually. Some of the 
ODI's traditional sources of information are lacking in the area of 
buses. For example, vehicle owner complaints, which are a vital source 
of information on light vehicles, are a rarity in the bus area. Given 
the magnitude of the potential harm that could result in just one bus 
crash, we believe eliminating the threshold for buses would allow ODI 
to identify potential problems that may have escaped its consideration 
since the inception of EWR reporting.
    We estimate that there are seventeen (17) additional bus 
manufacturers that would be required to report comprehensive EWR data 
to NHTSA under this proposal. We estimate 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. Considering the safety consequences associated with a crash 
involving a vehicle transporting large numbers of individuals and the 
likelihood that NHTSA may receive early warning information even from 
these small manufacturers that may help prevent such crashes, this 
burden on bus manufacturers does not appear to be unduly burdensome. As 
discussed further in section VII.B, below, eleven (11) of these bus 
manufacturers 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.
    Based upon the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.22 to 
eliminate the current reporting threshold for bus manufacturers that 
produce 500 or more buses annually. We are also proposing that for 
those manufacturers that produce both buses and medium-heavy vehicles, 
the reporting threshold will be separate. Thus, a manufacturer who 
produces both buses and medium heavy vehicles does not have to also 
submit quarterly EWR reports for its medium-heavy vehicles until it 
produces 500 or more medium-heavy vehicles annually.
    We seek comment on our proposal to require universal reporting by 
bus manufacturers.

F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles and Motorcycles

    The EWR regulation requires medium-heavy vehicle manufactures and 
motorcycle manufacturers that produce 500 or more units annually to 
submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22, 23. For these 
medium-heavy vehicles (other than buses) and motorcycle manufacturers, 
we have decided to keep threshold level for reporting at 500 or more 
units annually. We discuss our reasons for leaving the threshold level 
for reporting unchanged below.
1. Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    The EWR regulation requires medium-heavy vehicle and bus 
manufacturers that produce 500 or more units annually to submit 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22. The types of vehicles 
that report under this category include emergency vehicles, 
recreational vehicles, trucks and tractors.\6\ In a January 2006 
letter, the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) requested that the 
agency raise the EWR reporting threshold for medium-heavy vehicles from 
500 or more to 5,000 or more vehicles annually. In response to TMA's 
request, we considered raising the threshold for medium-heavy vehicle 
manufacturers from 500 or more units annually to various annual 
production levels, such as 1,000, 2,500, and 5,000 units annually. 
However, we have decided to leave the current threshold for these 
manufacturers unchanged based upon 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 determine whether to open investigations and identify 
possible safety-related defects. We discuss these reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For medium-heavy vehicle and bus category, vehicle type 
means: Truck, tractor, transit bus, school bus, coach, recreational 
vehicle, emergency vehicle or other. 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. 49 CFR 
579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 65 emergency vehicle, recreational vehicle, truck, 
and tractor manufacturers now submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 
For the third quarter of 2007, these manufacturers submitted 
approximately 95 property damage claims, 395,000 warranty claims, 
16,000 consumer complaints and 19,000 field reports on 6 million 
vehicles. These vehicle manufacturers report data on approximately 
400,000 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 2007, these manufacturers reported 
approximately 40 death and injury incidents and provided two thousand 
(2,000) copies of non-dealer field reports.
    If we were to raise the threshold for reporting quarterly reports 
from 500 or more to 1,000, 2,500, 5,000 or more medium-heavy vehicles 
annually, a significant number of medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 
would no longer be required to provide quarterly early warning reports. 
At a threshold level of 1,000 or more vehicles annually, 50 percent of 
emergency vehicle, 26 percent of recreational vehicle, and 34 percent 
of truck manufacturers would not be required to submit comprehensive 
quarterly EWR reports. At a threshold level of 2,500, 63 percent of 
emergency vehicle, 47 percent of recreational vehicle, and 57 percent 
of truck manufacturers would not be required to submit comprehensive 
quarterly EWR reports. At a threshold level of 5,000 or more vehicles 
annually, 75 percent of emergency vehicle, 58 percent of recreational 
vehicle, 74 percent of truck, and seventeen (17) percent of tractor 
manufacturers would not be required to submit comprehensive quarterly 
EWR reports.
    If we were to raise the reporting threshold for reporting quarterly 
reports from 500 or more to 1,000, 2,500, 5,000 or more medium-heavy 
vehicles annually, ODI would not receive quarterly EWR data on a 
significant amount of medium-heavy vehicle production. At a threshold 
level of 1,000 or more vehicles annually, 55 percent of all emergency 
vehicles produced, four (4) percent of all recreational vehicles 
produced and four (4) percent of all trucks produced would be 
eliminated from the requirement of comprehensive quarterly EWR 
reporting. At a threshold level of 2,500 or more vehicles annually, 84 
percent of all emergency vehicles produced, sixteen (16) percent of 
recreational vehicles produced and nine (9) percent of all trucks 
produced would be eliminated from the requirements of comprehensive 
quarterly EWR reporting. At a threshold level of 5,000 or more vehicles 
annually, 84 percent of all emergency vehicles produced, 28 percent of 
recreational vehicles produced and twenty-three (23) percent of all 
trucks produced would be

[[Page 74110]]

eliminated from the requirements of quarterly EWR reporting.
    The elimination of manufacturers and vehicles from the medium-heavy 
reporting category would severely impact the quantity of EWR data that 
ODI receives and utilizes in identifying potential safety-related 
defects. The reduction of data is most severe in the aggregate data for 
the medium-heavy category. If we were to raise the threshold to 1,000 
or more medium-heavy vehicles annually, there would be a reduction in 
the aggregate data of 33 percent for emergency vehicles, five (5) 
percent for recreational vehicles and four (4) percent for trucks. If 
we were to raise the threshold to 2,500 or more medium-heavy vehicles 
annually, there would be a reduction in the aggregate data of 54 
percent for emergency vehicles, twenty-three (23) percent for 
recreational vehicles and seven (7) percent for trucks. If we were to 
raise the threshold to 5,000 or more medium-heavy vehicles annually, 
there would be a reduction in the aggregate data of 54 percent for 
emergency vehicles, 30 percent for recreational vehicles and thirteen 
(13) percent for trucks.
    The recent recall history of medium-heavy vehicles details the 
detrimental impact the reduction of EWR data would have on ODI's 
ability to identify potential safety recalls. For the time period of 
January 2003 through July 2007, there were 656 medium and heavy vehicle 
safety recalls (applicable to codes for recreational vehicles (RV), 
emergency vehicles (EV), trucks (TK) tractors (TT) and ``other'' (OT)). 
Slightly more than half (330) of those recalls were conducted by 
manufacturers producing 5,000 or more vehicles annually. The remaining 
326 recalls were conducted by manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 
vehicles annually. ODI influenced 82 of the 656 recalls. Of the recalls 
influenced by ODI, more then half (50) involved manufacturers producing 
fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually. Many of the recalls conducted by 
medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 
vehicles annually involved serious safety issues. The following are 
illustrative of recalls conducted by medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 
during the past several years:
     Recall No. 03V-035, in which a 250 amp ground fuse became 
overloaded and was replaced with a 350 amp fuse.
     Recall No. 03V-224, in which an incorrect seat belt anchor 
was replaced.
     Recall No. 03V-465, in which a defective microwave oven 
could automatically activate and result in a fire.
     Recall No. 04V-491, in which a diode in the ABS module may 
experience a short resulting in a fire.
     Recall No. 05V-262, in which a positive battery cable 
shorts on the frame resulting in a fire.
     Recall No. 05V-334, in which non-conforming castings in 
the suspension may have fractured and failed under normal operating 
loads that could result in pieces of the casting becoming projectiles 
and the suspension's transverse beam dropping down low enough to 
contact the road surface, causing sparks that could potentially ignite 
a fire.
     Recall No. 06V-107, in which equipment compartment doors 
become stuck on emergency vehicle preventing access to equipment during 
an emergency.
     Recall No. 06V-157, in which an auto belt tensioner fails 
resulting in a stalled vehicle.
    If we were to raise the threshold for medium-heavy vehicle 
manufacturers to 5,000 or more vehicles annually, we would not receive 
timely early warning information about these types of safety problems 
on a significant number of vehicles.
    The importance of the receipt of quarterly EWR data from medium-
heavy vehicle manufacturers is underscored when compared to the limited 
data that ODI has historically received from other sources in 
connection with medium-heavy vehicles. For example, for light vehicles, 
the agency relies upon, among other things, owner complaints to 
identify a problem that may be safety related. Over the last five 
years, ODI has received, on average, 40,000 owner complaints annually 
from all sources on all types of motor vehicles. Of these, an extremely 
low number relate to medium-heavy vehicles. For the period from 
December 1, 2007 through May 18, 2008, ODI received only 237 complaints 
related to medium-heavy vehicles. Broken down by vehicle type, those 
complaints are 173 (73%) recreational vehicles, 43 (18%) trucks, and 
twenty-one (21) (9%) tractors. ODI's lack of data can hamper its 
ability to identify defects in a timely manner in this population of 
vehicles. Because field information is difficult to obtain, the EWR 
data has become an increasing resource for screening for safety-related 
defect trends and supplements the meager complaint data. Thus, in our 
view, any reduction in medium-heavy vehicle EWR data would be a severe 
detriment to ODI's mission to identify safety-related defects.
    Based upon the foregoing, we have decided to keep the reporting 
threshold for the medium-heavy category at 500 or more vehicles 
annually. If we were to raise the threshold to a level greater than 
5,000 or more vehicles annually, significant reductions in the 
proportion of manufacturers reporting and vehicles subject to reporting 
would occur, resulting in a significant loss of EWR data. This 
reduction is further compounded by the limited data related to medium-
heavy vehicles that ODI receives from other sources. We believe this 
loss of data would detrimentally impact ODI's ability to identify 
safety-related defects. Accordingly, we have decided not to raise the 
threshold for the medium-heavy vehicle category.
2. Motorcycles
    The EWR regulation requires motorcycle manufacturers that produce 
500 or more units annually to submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 
CFR 579.23. We considered raising the threshold for motorcycle 
manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 units annually. However, we have 
decided to leave the current threshold for motorcycle manufacturers 
unchanged based upon a combination of factors, such as, the proportion 
of manufacturers that would no longer have to report, the proportion of 
motorcycles that would no longer be subject to reporting, the effect 
that the reduction of EWR data would have on ODI's ability to determine 
when to open investigations and identify possible safety-related 
defects, and the safety risks attendant to motorcycles. We discuss 
these reasons below.
    If we were to raise the threshold for reporting quarterly reports 
from 500 or more to 5,000 or more motorcycles annually, the agency 
would lose nearly 40 percent of motorcycle manufacturers currently 
providing quarterly EWR reports. Currently, twenty-one (21) motorcycle 
manufacturers provide comprehensive quarterly reports to NHTSA pursuant 
to section 579.23. Raising the threshold to 5,000 or more motorcycles 
would eliminate eight (8) motorcycle manufacturers from the requirement 
to submit quarterly reports. If those eight (8) manufacturers did not 
submit quarterly reports, the agency would not receive quarterly EWR 
data on approximately 15,000 motorcycles per year.\7\ In our view, 
combined with the safety risks attendant to motorcycles, as discussed 
below, the loss of data on thousands of motorcycles would have a 
detrimental effect on ODI's ability to determine when to open

[[Page 74111]]

investigations and identify possible safety-related defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The eight (8) manufacturers would still be required to 
submit information on incidents involving a death pursuant to 49 CFR 
579.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recent recall history of manufacturers producing fewer than 
5,000 motorcycles annually offers some insight into the potential 
detrimental effect that raising the threshold would have on ODI's 
ability to identify safety concerns. Since 2002, manufacturers that 
produce fewer than 5,000 motorcycles annually have conducted a total of 
twenty-two (22) recalls, or nearly ten (10) percent of all motorcycle 
recalls in that time period, with a combined population of 60,000 
motorcycles. Many of these recalls involved serious safety issues. The 
following are illustrative of recalls by these motorcycle manufacturers 
during the past several years:
     Recall No. 04V-523, in which there was an unintended kick 
stand deployment from a broken return spring mount.
     Recall No. 05V-199, in which a rear suspension failure 
occurred due to a broken shock absorber mount.
     Recall No. 07V-460, in which fuel leaks lead to fire 
incidents.
     Recall No. 07V-580, in which a rear fender detachment 
resulted from broken hardware.
     Recall No. 03V-521, in which a brake caliper failure 
resulted in wheel lock.
     Recall No. 06V-090, in which a wheel spoke failure lead to 
rapid loss of tire inflation.
     Recall No. 07V-450, involved engine stalling.
    If we were to raise the threshold for motorcycle manufacturers to 
5,000 or more motorcycles annually, we would not receive timely early 
warning information about these types of safety problems on a 
significant number of motorcycles.
    Any reduction of the EWR data regarding motorcycles and potential 
diminution of ODI's ability to identify potential safety problems is 
particularly troubling when considering the increase in motorcycle 
ownership and use in the last decade. Between 1996 and 2006, the number 
of registered motorcycles nationwide increased from 3.87 million to 
6.68 million and the vehicle miles traveled increased from 9.92 million 
miles to 12.4 million. See 2006 Motorcycle Traffic Safety Facts, March, 
2008.\8\ This growth in motorcycle use in the past several years has 
coincided with a dramatic increase in motorcycle fatalities and 
injuries. In 1996, there were 2,161 fatalities and 55,000 injuries to 
motorcyclists. Id. In 2006, there were 4,810 fatalities and 88,000 
injuries of motorcyclists. Id. Between 1996 and 2006, the number of 
motorcycle fatalities grew from a rate of 55.82 per 100,000 riders to 
71.94 per 100,000 riders. Id. Based upon per vehicle mile traveled in 
2006, motorcyclists were about 35 times more likely than passenger car 
occupants to die in a motor vehicle traffic crash and eight (8) times 
more likely to be injured. Id. The increases in miles driven by 
motorcyclists and fatalities and injuries to motorcyclists do not 
appear to be slowing. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NHTSA's 2006 Motorcycle Traffic Safety Facts, March, 2008, 
is located at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810806.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the sharp increase in motorcycle use and the increase in 
fatalities and injuries as a result, we are reluctant to eliminate 
quarterly reporting from 40 percent of motorcycle manufacturers and on 
thousands of motorcycles. These manufacturers recall and remedy 
thousands of motorcycles per year with serious safety defects. 
Accordingly, we have decided to keep the threshold for EWR quarterly 
reporting by motorcycle manufacturers at 500 or more units annually.

G. Response to the National Truck Equipment Association Petition for 
Rulemaking

    In April 2006, the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) 
petitioned the agency for a rulemaking to amend the EWR rule to raise 
the EWR reporting threshold for vehicle manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 
vehicles annually, which would include final-stage manufacturers of 
multi-stage manufactured vehicles, include multi-stage manufacturers in 
the low volume category, formalize incomplete vehicle reporting to be 
consistent with NTEA's proposal, and require the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer to provide comprehensive EWR reports. Essentially, NTEA 
petitions the agency to amend the EWR rule to raise the reporting 
threshold for final-stage manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 vehicles 
annually, or alternatively, to permit these manufacturers, regardless 
of their production, to report on the limited basis required of 
manufacturers whose production is fewer than 500 vehicles. NTEA states 
that it currently has over 1,600 member companies and they estimate 
that as many as 300 may be final-stage manufacturers producing a total 
of 500 or more trucks per year.
    NTEA asserts that final-stage manufacturers do not receive the bulk 
of EWR data from the end user. According to NTEA, the primary reason 
for the limited amount of EWR information is because most final-stage 
vehicles are often custom or semi-custom work trucks. It states that a 
typical work truck is purchased at the dealer of the chassis or 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The dealer works with the customer to 
detail the type of truck, truck body and equipment the customer will 
need. Once the truck requirements are specified, the dealer contacts a 
final-stage manufacturer, which will install the body and required 
equipment to meet the order. The final-stage manufacturer certifies 
that the completed vehicle meets all applicable federal motor vehicle 
safety standards and the vehicle is returned to the dealer. The dealer 
will then deliver the truck to the customer. Accordingly, the final-
stage manufacturer has limited contact with the customer. If there are 
any concerns or complaints, in general, the customer contacts the 
dealer. In the vast majority of cases, the complaint is chassis related 
and handled at the dealership. NTEA asserts that the final-stage 
manufacturer has limited, if any, contact with the end user of the work 
truck, and as a result, the final-stage manufacturer will file the 
required reports with nothing to report.
    NTEA further claims the costs for complying with EWR are 
disproportionate to the reporting obligations of final-stage 
manufacturers. According to NTEA, initial start-up costs can cost from 
$26,000 to $75,000, depending upon the software program and not 
including annual software upgrades. NTEA estimates the annual costs for 
submitting quarterly reports is in excess of $25,000. Alternatively, 
for manufacturers producing fewer than 500 vehicles annually the start-
up costs are approximately $10,000 and annual maintenance is 
approximately $5,000.
    NHTSA has decided not to adopt the recommendations made by NTEA at 
this time. To the extent that any of NTEA's members are manufacturers 
of light vehicles, of course, they would be beneficiaries of the 
proposed increase of the reporting threshold for light vehicles to 
5,000. However, its members that produce multi-stage vehicles are 
primarily producing medium and heavy trucks. Our explanation above for 
why we are not proposing to raise the threshold for medium and heavy 
trucks would apply to these multi-stage vehicles. We do not find 
persuasive NTEA's argument that multi-stage vehicle manufacturers are a 
special category of medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers that should be 
subject to different reporting rules. While NTEA asserts that the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer is the point of contact for customers 
for a large number of chassis related concerns, there are a substantial 
number of concerns that are related to

[[Page 74112]]

the equipment added by the final-stage manufacturer.
    NHTSA's understanding of the multi-stage vehicle process is that 
the purchaser decides on a chassis manufacturer and the type of 
completed vehicle he/she wishes to purchase. A dealer that sells the 
required chassis or incomplete vehicle is contacted. Based on the 
specifications of the completed vehicle, a chassis model and 
appropriate equipment, i.e., axles with adequate load rating, are 
selected. The chassis may range from being relatively close to 
completion (such as a chassis cab \9\) to being relatively far from 
completion (such as a stripped chassis\10\). To produce a completed 
vehicle, a platform or body type is added to the chassis. The 
purchaser, with assistance from the dealer, chooses a manufacturer of 
the platform or body. The chassis is ordered from the chassis 
manufacturer by the dealer and is typically sent to the manufacturer of 
the platform or body, or to a distributor of the platform or body. The 
platform or body is manufactured and installed on the chassis or is 
sent to the distributor who installs it on the chassis, completing the 
vehicle. NHTSA recognizes the company that completed the vehicle by 
installing the platform as its final-stage manufacturer. A number of 
different vehicle types can be produced from the same chassis including 
a school bus, flatbed truck, dump truck, tow truck, box truck, service 
truck, utility truck or other specialized application. Regardless of 
the state of completion of the chassis or where it goes after it leaves 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's plant, there is one fundamental 
fact: Once the incomplete vehicle is out of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's hands, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer does not have 
control over what is done with, or what components are added to, the 
incomplete vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A chassis cab is an incomplete vehicle with a completed 
occupant compartment that requires only the addition of cargo-
carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components to perform its 
intended function. See 49 CFR 567.3 (2007). For illustration 
purposes, an example is a pickup truck without a standard pickup 
truck bed. These may be built into various trucks including a 
tradesman's utility service truck, a tow truck, a dump truck, a box 
truck or a specialized work truck.
    \10\ A stripped chassis may be viewed as meeting the definition 
of an incomplete vehicle without more. As shipped by the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer, it would have steering control and braking 
systems (to meet the definition of incomplete vehicle). It 
ordinarily would not have the windshield, roof, A-pillar (the pillar 
to which the windshield attaches), B pillar (the pillar behind the 
(front) doors) or body components. Ford's E-series incomplete 
vehicle manual refers to this as a basic chassis. These may not be 
particularly evident on the road and may underlie, for illustration 
purposes, school buses or large recreation vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There can be problems with the vehicle once it is completed that 
may not be attributed to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but that 
may be attributed to the final-stage manufacturer. These problems may 
never be brought to the attention of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer. A common scenario would be that the owner takes the 
vehicle to a dealer. If the problem is with the body or platform, the 
dealer would probably recommend that the owner contact the manufacturer 
of the platform or body or its distributor to resolve the problem. If 
the problem is with the chassis, the chassis dealer would take 
appropriate action, including notifying the chassis manufacturer, i.e., 
to obtain warranty reimbursement. However, if the problem on the 
chassis is a result of work performed by the vehicle's final-stage 
manufacturer, the dealer would likely repair the problem but seek 
reimbursement from the final-stage manufacturer.
    Consider the following examples:
     An incomplete vehicle manufacturer ships a chassis to a 
final-stage manufacturer, who then installs an ambulance body. If, 
during the body installation process, the brake lines were to be 
squeezed by the body, in time, the brake line would leak brake fluid. 
In this case, given that the chassis is beyond the control of the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the responsibility lies with the 
final-stage manufacturer, even though the chassis manufacturer 
installed the original brake lines on the chassis. While the initial 
contact by the customer may be with a dealer, in at least some cases 
the dealer is also the final-stage manufacturer or authorized to 
implement repairs on behalf of the final-stage manufacturer. For those 
that are not, normally the dealer will submit an invoice for 
reimbursement of the repairs and therefore the final-stage manufacturer 
would have possession of the complaint or warranty claim information.
     A final-stage manufacturer adds a dump truck body to a cab 
and chassis. During the body installation, the positive battery cable 
(originally installed by the chassis manufacturer) is positioned in 
such a way that it chafes on the body/frame interface during normal 
operation. At some point, the cable shorts out, creating sparks and 
possibly a fire. The owner would report the problem to a dealer who 
would most likely implement the repair and record the complaint/
warranty claim in the company's warranty/complaint system. An invoice 
would be sent to the final-stage manufacturer for reimbursement and 
thus be available for EWR reporting purposes.
     A final-stage manufacturer mounts a top-heavy gasoline 
tank on the chassis, which causes the suspension to become overloaded. 
Due to the overloading, the suspension fails prematurely resulting in 
the body dropping down on top of the tires. The final-stage 
manufacturer would be responsible (even though the chassis manufacturer 
installed the suspension) and would record the complaint.
     A final-stage manufacturer makes modifications to the 
interior compartment of a chassis cab, potentially resulting in an 
overloaded electrical harness. This type of overloading could result in 
a fuse circuit becoming overloaded with possible headlight or brake 
light failure or perhaps an interior fire. Such issues would most 
likely be reported to a dealer who may also be the final-stage 
manufacturer. However, if not, the final-stage manufacturer would 
submit an invoice for reimbursement and thus have a record of the 
repair.

These examples serve to illustrate the substantial number of issues 
that may emerge after the final-stage manufacturer completes the 
vehicle. NHTSA agrees that the initial contact for a problem will most 
often be a dealer; however, some dealers are final-stage manufacturers 
and even if they are not, they will make contact with the final-stage 
manufacturer (if appropriate) for reimbursement of any repairs 
performed. In many cases, the dealer would also be the correct entity 
to service the cab/chassis (incomplete vehicle). Clearly, both 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers may 
receive complaints and concerns with their respective products and 
frequently these complaints will come through the dealer network.
    NTEA estimates that as many as 300 final-stage manufacturers 
produce 500 or more vehicles annually and are subject to EWR quarterly 
reporting. NTEA's numbers of reporting final-stage manufacturers appear 
to be overstated. NHTSA receives EWR data from 139 vehicle 
manufacturers who indicate that they produce either light or medium-
heavy and bus vehicles (light vehicles are included in this discussion 
to capture the 1-ton series cab and chassis from various 
manufacturers). Some manufacturers produce both, so the total number of 
manufacturers reporting in both categories is 150. NHTSA is unable to 
identify exactly which of the 150 vehicle manufacturers are final-stage

[[Page 74113]]

manufacturers. However, we know that the number of final-stage 
manufacturers is a subset of the 150 manufacturers reporting under the 
light vehicle and medium-heavy and bus categories. We also know that 
not all of these 150 manufacturers are final-stage manufacturers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Based on our review of manufacturers submitting EWR 
reports, it appears that the majority of final-stage manufacturers 
of vehicles manufactured in multiple stages submit reports in the 
light vehicle category. As we stated before, 30 light vehicle 
manufacturers will no longer have to submit quarterly EWR reports if 
the proposed 5000 or more vehicle threshold for light vehicles is 
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The actual number of NTEA members providing EWR quarterly reports 
appears to be significantly lower then NTEA's estimates. In January 
2006, NTEA submitted to NHTSA a spreadsheet that listed 702 of its 
``Distributor'' members. Using NTEA's ``Distributor'' list, NHTSA 
searched its EWR database to identify those manufacturers who had 
established EWR accounts in order to submit EWR reports. We found that 
only eleven (11) of the 702 members had existing EWR accounts. Of the 
eleven (11) NTEA members reporting, three (3) members submit reports 
only for the light vehicle category, one (1) member submits reports 
only for the trailer category, three (3) members submit reports for 
only medium-heavy and bus category and the remaining four (4) members 
submit quarterly reports for both light vehicles and medium-heavy and 
bus categories. At a minimum, potentially, four (4) of the eleven (11) 
NTEA members will realize a reduction in their burden to provide 
quarterly EWR reports with the proposed increase of the threshold for 
light vehicle and trailer reporting. With only eleven (11) members of 
NTEA providing EWR reports, NTEA's claims that 300 of its members 
submit quarterly EWR reports appears to be greatly exaggerated. In 
contrast to NTEA's claim, it appears that the vast majority of its 
members are under the current 500 vehicle threshold and subject only to 
the limited reporting applicable to small volume manufacturers under 49 
CFR 579.27.
    NTEA also claims that final-stage manufacturers do not receive much 
of the reportable EWR data. Our experience with EWR contradicts NTEA's 
allegation. EWR data indicates that final-stage manufacturers that 
produce 500 or more vehicles or trailers submit quarterly EWR reports 
that include property data claims, warranty claims, consumer 
complaints, and field reports. For final-stage manufacturers that 
produce fewer than 5,000 light vehicles and trailers, they should see a 
reduction in their reporting burden if today's proposal is adopted. But 
for the medium-heavy and bus categories, as we noted in sections E and 
F above, there would be detrimental impacts upon our ability to 
identify safety-related defects if we were to raise the threshold for 
final-stage manufacturers. Based upon NHTSA's general understanding of 
the 90 manufacturers reporting under the medium-heavy and bus category, 
we were able to estimate that 40 percent of the production volume of 
the medium-heavy and bus category is reported by final-stage 
manufacturers. In our view, losing 40 percent of the current production 
volume submitted by medium-heavy and bus manufacturers would negatively 
affect our ability to find potential safety defects in these vehicles.
    NTEA also asserts that the costs for EWR submissions are between 
$26,000 and $75,000 for start-up and $25,000 for annual reporting. NTEA 
did not submit any evidence to support its cost estimates. Based upon 
NTEA's ``Distributors'' members list, only eleven (11) manufacturers 
submit quarterly EWR reports, and these manufacturers have already 
incurred the one-time start-up fee for EWR reporting. Several of those 
members may have their annual reporting costs reduced because they are 
final-stage manufacturers submitting reports in the light vehicle and 
trailer categories. Furthermore, for the remaining final-stage 
manufacturers, the costs of complying with EWR are low because they are 
under the 500 vehicle threshold for quarterly reports.
    Based on the above analysis, NHTSA is leaving the threshold for EWR 
reporting for final-stage manufacturers unchanged. We seek comment on 
our decision to leave the threshold for EWR reporting for final-stage 
manufacturers unchanged.

H. Data Consistency

    The EWR regulation requires manufacturers to follow certain filing 
naming conventions when submitting their quarterly EWR reports. 49 CFR 
579.29(a). The naming requirement does not specify a format for 
manufacturers to provide the model names of their products submitted 
with their EWR quarterly reports. Manufacturers are under no obligation 
to provide the same make, model and model name from quarter to quarter, 
although the overwhelming majority of manufacturers do so. Our 
experience with the EWR data submissions reveals that some 
manufacturers do not provide consistent model naming across EWR 
quarters, which impedes our ability to analyze the EWR data.
    Our analysis of the EWR data reveals that some manufacturers' 
production and aggregate data do not align across reporting quarters 
due to inconsistent model names submitted by manufacturers from one 
reporting period to another. We have also found that in some instances, 
we cannot analyze data because a particular model's run ended 
prematurely or started later than would be normally expected based on a 
typical model year.
    To illustrate the inconsistencies we have encountered, we provide 
the following examples.
     Manufacturers inadvertently insert spaces or slightly 
alter the make, model and model year of a product. For instance, 
manufacturer submits quarterly reports for product with the make, model 
and model year as a 2004 Pontiac Sunbird. This product name is provided 
for the quarterly reports for the third quarter of 2003 through the 
fourth quarter 2005. However, in the first quarter of 2006, the 
manufacturer submits the 2004 Pontiac Sunbird as the 2004 Pontiac Sun 
bird. The manufacturer inadvertently added a blank space between the 
``Sun'' and ``bird.''
     Manufacturers provide shorthand names for their products. 
For example, changing the make of a product from ``Oldsmobile'' to 
``Olds'' or changing the model name from ``Mark7'' to ``Mark VII.''

Adding a blank space, shortening a make or model name, replacing a 
number with text or adding text to the vehicle make or model (in the 
case of tires, the tire line) will make the data from one quarter 
inconsistent from another quarter. Inconsistent product naming in the 
data reported under EWR rules significantly diminishes NHTSA's ability 
to utilize the EWR data for identifying potential safety concerns. In 
particular, the inconsistency found in model naming across report 
periods makes it impossible to perform a longitudinal (time series) 
analysis of the EWR data. Additionally, NHTSA is unable to efficiently 
automate the review of data across reporting periods due to an 
inability to map data from one period to another. The lack of a 
consistent model naming means there is no ``key'' with which to merge 
data across report periods.
    To improve the quality of EWR data, today we propose to amend 49 
CFR 579.29 to add a requirement that manufacturers must provide the 
identical make, model and model year of products previously submitted 
to

[[Page 74114]]

NHTSA or to inform NHTSA in a timely way of changes in these names. 
This proposal would require manufacturers reporting EWR data on a 
quarterly basis to maintain a consistent model naming convention for 
each unique product from one report to the next, and throughout the 
full reporting period. This does not preclude the manufacturer from 
changing or creating another name when a ``new'' product (e.g., a new 
model and/or model year) is reported, just that the product's make, 
model, and model year must remain consistent from the first time it is 
included in an EWR report throughout subsequent EWR reports. If this 
proposal is adopted, we plan on implementing a screening process within 
ARTEMIS to ensure data integrity and reject any quarterly submission 
where a product name is inconsistent with prior quarterly submissions, 
or is otherwise unrecognizable.
    Our intention to amend ARTEMIS to reject quarterly reports raises 
the issue of how a manufacturer notifies NHTSA that it is adding a new 
model to its product line and reporting in its EWR quarterly report. We 
plan to amend the EWR reporting template required by 49 CFR 
579.29(a)(1) to add a new field so that a manufacturer can indicate 
that it is introducing a new make, model and model year vehicle. A 
manufacturer may 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 must 
provide an ``h'' to indicate that the make, model, model year is not 
new, but a historical product.
    We believe that this proposed change would have a minimal burden on 
those manufacturers required to submit quarterly EWR data. 
Manufacturers would need to implement a system to ensure a consistent 
naming convention for each unique product submitted in their EWR 
reports. In addition, there would be an increased burden on 
manufacturers to populate the additional field in the EWR reporting 
template.
    We seek comment on our proposal to amend 49 CFR 579.29 to add a new 
paragraph to require manufacturers to provide consistent product names 
in their EWR quarterly reports and indicate whether when a new model is 
added to the manufacturer's product line.

I. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data

    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers that 
produce 500 or more vehicles annually to submit production information 
that includes the make, the model, the model year, the type, the 
platform and the production. 49 CFR 579.21(a). Manufacturers must 
provide the production as a cumulative total for the model year, unless 
production of the product has ceased. Id. While light vehicle 
manufacturers are required to provide the type of vehicle with their 
production, they are not required to provide the type of vehicle when 
they submit their death and injury data pursuant to 49 CFR 579.21(b) or 
with their aggregate data under 49 CFR 579.21(c).\12\ Under today's 
notice, we propose to amend 579.21(b) and (c) to require light vehicle 
manufacturers to provide the type of vehicle when they submit their 
death and injury data and aggregate data under those sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For light vehicles, type means a vehicle certified by its 
manufacturer pursuant to 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7) as a passenger car, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck or a vehicle identified by 
its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle pursuant to 48 CFR 568.4. 
See 49 CFR 579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because light volume manufacturers that provide quarterly EWR 
reports are not obligated to provide the vehicle type in all their EWR 
reports, NHTSA is unable to distinguish whether the light vehicle death 
and injury and aggregate data are associated with a certain type of 
vehicle such as a car, light truck, multi-purpose vehicle or incomplete 
vehicle. Without being able to isolate this information by vehicle 
type, ODI cannot match the aggregate data with the production data.
    If today's proposal is adopted, NHTSA could perform a more focused 
analysis of the EWR information. For instance, warranty claims by 
vehicle type from the aggregate data can be matched with the 
corresponding vehicle type production volume data, allowing us to 
determine the occurrence of warranty claims per vehicle type. This 
ratio can then be used to guide our efforts in a subsequent and more 
focused and thorough analysis of EWR data; a high ratio of warranty 
claims per production unit may warrant further examination of EWR and 
other ODI sources of information. Today's proposal would permit a more 
efficient and targeted use of the EWR data in terms of detecting and 
identifying potential safety concerns.
    Light vehicle manufacturers should be able to readily identify the 
vehicle type from the VIN provided in the information they receive. 
About 95 percent of the EWR reports on incidents involving a death or 
injury include a VIN when initially submitted by manufacturers. 71 FR 
52040, 52046 (September 1, 2006). Warranty claims and field reports 
normally contain a VIN because the manufacturer's authorized dealer or 
representative has access to the vehicle and, in the case of warranty 
claims, a vehicle manufacturer will not pay a warranty claim unless the 
claim includes the VIN. For consumer complaints and property damage 
claims, the VIN or other information is available to identify the type 
of vehicle. If in some instances the VIN is not available, we propose 
that the manufacturer submit ``UN'' for ``unknown'' in the required 
field.
    NHTSA believes that a one-time burden would be placed on light 
vehicle manufacturers as a result of this change. Each manufacturer 
would need to add an additional field to their EWR database that will 
contain the light vehicle type information. This burden should be 
minimal.
    We seek comment on today's proposed amendments to 49 CFR 579.21(b) 
and (c) to add the requirement that the vehicle type be reported 
included in death and injury and aggregate data EWR reports.

J. New Component Category for Light Vehicles and Reporting by Fuel and/
or Propulsion System Type

    The EWR regulation requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers for 
each reporting category to report the required information by specific 
component categories. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), 579.22(b)(2), 579.23(b)(2), 
579.24(b)(2), 579.25(b)(2), and 579.26(b)(2). The component categories 
for each industry have remained unchanged since the EWR regulation was 
published in July 2002. Since that time, new technologies have been 
introduced into the marketplace, such as hybrid vehicles and Electronic 
Stability Control (ESC). As these new technologies proliferate 
throughout the industry, and demand for these products increase in the 
market place, we are concerned that the EWR component categories are 
unsuitable for capturing these newer technologies. As a result, today 
we propose to add a component for the light vehicles and to amend the 
model designation for motor vehicles.
    We propose to add one new component for light vehicles in 49 CFR 
579.21(b)(2) for Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems. On April 
6, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule adding Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.126; Electronic stability control systems. 
72 FR 17310, as amended 72 FR 34410, June 22, 2007. FMVSS No. 126 is 
phased-in, requiring that all new light vehicles must be equipped with 
an ESC system that meets the requirements of the standard

[[Page 74115]]

by September 1, 2011, with certain exceptions. As a result of this 
Standard, the number of vehicles containing ESC entering the market is 
increasing and will be standard on all light vehicles by the 2011 model 
year.
    Adding an ESC component category to light vehicle reporting 
category will allow NHTSA to capture data on this mandatory system and 
analyze ESC data for potential safety concerns. The EWR regulation 
currently does not have a specific component for ESC issues. See 49 CFR 
579.21(b)(2). Many manufacturers report ESC issues under ``03 service 
brakes'' because the definition of ``service brake'' includes ESC. As a 
result, potential ESC issues will be masked within the broader service 
brake category, making NHTSA unable to examine and detect potential 
safety concerns that may be associated directly with a vehicle's ESC 
system.
    We propose to amend 49 CFR 579.4(b) to add the regulatory 
definition of ESC systems, found in 49 CFR 571.126.S4 and to amend the 
definition of ``service brake system'' to remove ESC from the 
definition. We seek comments on our proposal to amend 49 CFR 
579.21(b)(2) to add the component ``Electronic Stability Control 
system.'' We also seek comments on the proposed definitions for this 
component.
    The current national focus on automobile fuel efficiency is likely 
to cause a rapid increase in the number of vehicles with alternative 
fuel and/or propulsion systems and a proliferation in the types of 
those systems. NHTSA believes that the large scale introduction of new 
fuel/propulsion systems, particularly in light vehicles, may present 
safety issues peculiar to those new systems.
    Therefore, NHTSA believes it is an opportune time to start 
collecting EWR information in a way that facilitates sorting the light 
vehicle data by type of fuel/propulsion system. In this way, problems 
with a particular make and model that may be unique to only one fuel/
propulsion system can readily be distinguished from problems that may 
apply to that make and model regardless of the fuel/propulsion system. 
Also, NHTSA would be able to more readily investigate problems that 
could possibly appear in many vehicles with similar fuel/propulsion 
systems (e.g., a battery problem in a plug-in electric vehicle or a 
hydrogen fuel cell problem that may extend to similarly equipped 
vehicles).
    NHTSA believes that the most useful way to collect this information 
is at the vehicle model level. We considered asking for the information 
at the component level, but have tentatively concluded that asking 
manufacturers to simply describe the fuel/propulsion system type at the 
model level would be the least costly and most efficient method.
    Accordingly, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.21 by adding the words 
``(separately reported by fuel and/or propulsion system type and 
code)'' after the word ``model'' the first time it is used in that 
section (i.e., before subsection (a)). That language applies to 
paragraphs (a) and (c) of that section, which cover production 
information and aggregate data on property damage claims, consumer 
complaints, warranty claims, and field reports. To ensure that we get 
the same level of detail on incidents involving a death or injury, we 
propose to add the same words, i.e., ``(separately reported by fuel 
and/or propulsion system type and code),'' after the word ``model'' the 
first time it is used in paragraph (b)(2).
    In order to ensure some standardization in terms of how fuel/
propulsion system types are reported, we propose to add to 49 CFR 579.4 
a new definition of ``fuel and/or propulsion system type'' immediately 
after the current definition of ``fuel system.'' The new definition 
would provide that ``Fuel and/or propulsion system type means the 
variety of fuel and/or propulsion systems used in a vehicle, coded as 
follows: 01 gasoline only, 02 diesel only, 03 gasoline--dual fueled, 04 
diesel--dual fueled, 05 hybrid--gas/electric, 06 hybrid--diesel/
electric, 07 electric--battery, 08 electric--hydrogen fuel cell, 09 
natural gas, 10 liquefied petroleum gas, 11 hydrogen internal 
combustion, 12 alcohol only, 13 other.''
    We do not suggest that this definition includes every possible fuel 
and/or propulsion system type. Nor do we suggest that these are the 
only ways to describe these systems. We solicit comment on whether 
additional fuel and/or propulsion system types should be added and on 
how each distinct type of system might be best described.
    However, we do not believe it is necessary to add definitions of 
each particular fuel system type. We are content, once we have 
developed a sufficiently complete list, to have the manufacturer choose 
which description best fits its vehicle. If its fuel and/or propulsion 
system is not described, the manufacturer may always choose ``other.'' 
Eventually, based on experience, we may have to expand the number of 
choices. We did not incorporate the ``dual fueled automobile'' 
definition used for fuel economy purposes and found in 49 U.S.C. 32901. 
That definition incorporates that statute's definition of ``alternative 
fuel,'' which includes electricity. We think that could lead to 
confusion about how to categorize hybrid electric vehicles for EWR 
purposes. When we use ``dual fueled'' in the definition of ``Fuel and/
or propulsion system type,'' we are intending to include only vehicles 
that run on either gasoline or diesel fuel and another liquid fuel 
(e.g., ethanol or methanol) combined with either gasoline or diesel 
fuel. We specifically seek comment on whether to incorporate ``dual 
fueled automobile'' definition 49 U.S.C. 32901 for EWR purposes and, if 
we do, how to make appropriate distinctions.
    Adding this brief description of the fuel and/or propulsion system 
type to the model name should not be a burden for manufacturers. They 
already make these distinctions in marketing their vehicles and their 
databases presumably distinguish within models by fuel and/or 
propulsion system type for a variety of reasons. However, we ask that 
commenters address what steps manufacturers would have to take to 
ensure that their EWR submissions complied with the proposed standard. 
We believe that the simple addition of the appropriate fuel and/or 
propulsion system type and its code to the model name will provide 
measurable benefits throughout the coming years by enhancing NHTSA's 
ability to identify and address potential safety defects that may be 
related to specific fuel and/or propulsion systems.
    In addition to comments on above proposals, we also seek comment on 
whether the EWR reports should contain additional component categories 
for other emerging technologies. Among those technologies are adaptive 
cruise control, lane departure warning, lane keeping, automatic 
braking, and forward collision avoidance. Problems that may develop in 
several of these technologies may be reported under existing component 
categories, but may be very hard to identify within those categories. 
We seek comment on the possible need for such particularized data, the 
extent to which manufacturers are already separately tracking these 
categories, and the additional burden on manufacturers that would be 
caused by requiring that EWR reports clearly identify these 
technologies as components.

K. Lead Time

    We understand that if today's proposed amendments to the EWR 
regulation were adopted, manufacturers would require time to either 
install systems to meet their new obligations under the EWR regulation 
or modify

[[Page 74116]]

their existing EWR databases and/or IT systems to take into account the 
changes to the regulation. The proposed amendments that would require 
some lead time for manufacturers to modify their databases and IT 
systems include the elimination of the reporting threshold for 
submitting quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA by bus manufacturers, the 
requirement for consistent product naming, the requirement for light 
vehicle manufacturers to provide the vehicle type in their quarterly 
EWR submissions, the addition of another component for light vehicle 
manufacturers and the requirement for fuel and/or propulsion vehicle 
model reporting. Because manufacturers will need time to modify 
existing EWR databases and/or IT systems to confirm their systems to 
meet the amendments proposed today, we propose a lead time of (1) 
calendar year from the date the final rule is published. We believe 
that a one year lead time is an adequate amount of time for 
manufacturers to comply with the proposed amendments. Accordingly, the 
effective date for the amendments to the reporting threshold for buses, 
consistent product naming, light vehicle type, light vehicle component 
and fuel and /or propulsion system model reporting will be the first 
reporting quarter that is one year from the date the final rule is 
published.
    For the proposed amendments to the reporting threshold for 
manufacturers of light vehicles and trailers, we do not believe a long 
lead time is necessary. We propose that the effective dates for these 
amendments be 30 days after date the final rule is published.
    We seek comments on our proposed lead time and effective dates.

L. Technical Correction to the Definition of Customer Satisfaction 
Campaign and Other Safety Campaign

    Attorney Stephen Selander pointed out an inconsistency in the 
definitions of ``customer satisfaction campaign'' and ``other safety 
campaign'' in 49 CFR 579.4. He points out that the language in the two 
definitions is similar and that there appears to be a misplaced closed 
parenthetical in the definition of in ``other safety campaign.'' The 
definition of ``customer satisfaction campaign'' states: ``Customer 
satisfaction campaign, consumer advisory, recall, or other activity 
involving the repair or replacement of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment means any communication by a manufacturer to, or made 
available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor, lessee, other 
manufacturer, or owner, whether in writing or by electronic means, 
relating to repair, replacement, or modification of a vehicle, 
component of a vehicle, item of equipment, or a component thereof, 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.''
    The definition of ``other safety campaign'' states: ``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).''
    We agree with Mr. Selander that the closed parenthesis in the 
definition ``other safety campaign'' is misplaced and should be moved 
to immediately after the term ``of first sale'' to be consistent with 
the definition of ``customer satisfaction campaign.'' Accordingly, we 
propose to amend the definition of ``other safety campaign'' to reflect 
this change. The new definition would read as follows: ``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.''
    We seek comment on this proposed change.

M. Amendments to Information Required To Be Submitted in a Part 573 
Defect or Noncompliance Information Reports

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, manufacturers must provide 
notification to the agency if the manufacturer decides or the agency 
determines that a defect or noncompliance exists in a motor vehicle or 
item of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has significant discretion in 
determining the contents of this notification. 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). 
NHTSA's regulation specifying the contents of the notification to the 
agency 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 and the address for submitting reports in section 573.9. We are 
proposing to amend subsections 573.6(c)(2)(iii) & (iv) to add language 
that will further assist the agency and the public to identify 
components or identify the items of motor vehicle equipment involved in 
the subject recall and section 573.9. In turn, we propose to add 
language to section 573.9 to facilitate the submission of reports 
affected by the proposal to subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii). These 
proposals are discussed in detail below.
    Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) concerns the identification of motor 
vehicle equipment containing the defect or noncompliance. It requires 
the manufacturer of the item of motor vehicle equipment to identify the 
item that contains the defect, with other identifying information. 
Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) currently states: ``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, size and function if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and 
year) of manufacture if available and any other information necessary 
to describe the items.''
    With respect to tire recalls, tire manufacturers generally provide 
the brand name, model name and size of the particular tire recalled. In 
addition, tire manufacturers identify the tires that contain the defect 
by providing the build dates of the tires. Build dates are of limited 
assistance to consumers who undertake to determine if a tire is subject 
to a recall because there is no ``build date'' on the tire. Rather, the 
tire build date is encoded within the Tire Identification Number (TIN) 
which is molded to the side of the tire. In addition to providing build 
dates, we are proposing that tire manufacturers submit a list of all 
unique TINs of the tires containing the defect. Alternatively, we 
propose that tire manufacturers provide a range of TINs if providing a 
list of all unique TINs

[[Page 74117]]

would be difficult and costly. We believe that providing a list of TINs 
or range of TINs will further assist consumers in identifying whether 
their tire is the subject of the recall. Therefore, we propose to amend 
subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) as follows: ``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 list of tire identification numbers), size and function 
if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacture if 
available and any other information necessary to describe the items.''
    We seek comments on our proposal to require a list of unique TINs 
for tires subject to a recall. We also seek comment on our alternate 
proposal to require a range of TINs in lieu of a list of unique TINs. 
We are particularly interested in practical concerns tire manufacturers 
would face in providing a unique list of TINs or a range of TINs. In 
either case, we are interested in comments on whether providing 
additional TIN information will assist consumers in identifying tires 
subject to manufacturer recalls and the best method of disseminating 
that information (for example: In range or list form, or as a lookup 
application on the NHTSA Web site). If we adopt the alternative 
proposal for a range of TINs, we will amend the proposed language of 
section 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to reflect that decision.
    We recognize that should we adopt the proposal to require a list of 
unique TINs or a range of TINs that tire manufacturers could in 
practice submit long lists because in some tire recalls or 
noncompliances the list of unique TINs number in the tens of thousands 
or hundreds of thousands. In order to facilitate the submission of a 
large list of unique TINs with a manufacturer's Part 573 Report, we are 
proposing to amend section 573.9 to provide for the submission of the 
list of unique TINs or a range of TINs in an electronic format that can 
be e-mailed or submitted through the Internet. Section 573.9 currently 
permits manufacturers to submit their 573 Defect or Noncompliance 
Report as a portable document format (pdf.) attachment to an e-mail 
message to the agency. See 72 FR 32014 (June 11, 2007). That option 
does not supersede the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) \13\ that 
manufacturers notify NHTSA by certified mail when they learn a product 
they manufacture contains a safety defect or does not comply with a 
FMVSS. Currently, section 573.9 states: ``All submissions, except as 
otherwise required by this part, shall be addressed to the Associate 
Administrator for Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Attention: Recall Management Division (NVS-215), 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. These submissions may be 
submitted as an attachment to an e-mail message to RMD.ODI@dot.gov in a 
portable document format (.pdf). Whether or not they are also submitted 
electronically, defect or noncompliance reports required by section 
573.6 of this part must be submitted by certified mail in accordance 
with 49 U.S.C. 30118(c).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) states in pertinent part: ``A 
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment shall 
notify the Secretary by certified mail * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to amend section 573.9 to permit manufacturers to 
submit a unique list of TINs to NHTSA electronically as an attachment 
to the e-mail submitting a Defect or Noncompliance Report or through 
the Intranet via NHTSA's Internet Web address. If we adopt the 
alternative proposal for a range of TINs, we will amend the proposed 
language of section 573.9 to reflect that decision. If a manufacturer 
chooses to submit the list of TINs as an attachment to the e-mail 
submitting its Part 573 Defect or Noncompliance report, the TIN data 
must be in a commercially available text format such as Microsoft 
Access or an Excel spreadsheet. If a manufacturer has an established 
EWR identification and password or establishes an EWR identification 
and password with NHTSA,\14\ we propose that the manufacturer may 
submit the TIN data to NHTSA via a Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) 
server located at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/safetrecall/TINupload. 
Accordingly, we propose to amend section 573.9 to read: ``All 
submissions, except as otherwise required by this part, shall be 
addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Recall Management 
Division (NVS-215), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
These submissions may be submitted as an attachment to an e-mail 
message to RMD.ODI@dot.gov in a portable document format (.pdf). Tire 
Identification Numbers that are required to be submitted pursuant to 
573.6(c)(2)(iii) may be submitted as an attachment to the 
aforementioned e-mail message and provided in a commercially available 
text format (e.g. Microsoft Access or Excel), or, if the manufacturer 
has an early warning reporting identification and password pursuant to 
49 CFR 579.28, submitted to NHTSA's tire identification number 
repository identified on the Office of Defects' Internet homepage 
(http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/safetrecall/TINupload). Whether or not 
these submissions are also submitted electronically, defect or 
noncompliance reports required by section 573.6 of this part must be 
submitted by certified mail in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118(c).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Manufacturers submitting EWR reports to NHTSA must request 
an identification number and a password. 49 CFR 579.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comments on our proposal to amend section 573.9 to permit 
the submission of a list of unique TINs for tires subject to a recall 
or noncompliance by e-mail or directly uploading the list to NHTSA.
    We are also proposing to amend 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). Subsection 
573.6(c)(2)(iv) currently states: ``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 the manufacturer 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.''
    When this regulation was adopted, the identification of the 
manufacturer of the component by name and business address was 
sufficient to provide NHTSA with the country of origin of the 
component. By providing the name of the manufacturer, NHTSA could 
determine the location where the component was finally assembled or 
fabricated. However, with the increasing globalization of the 
automotive industry, the identification of the manufacturer of a 
component by name and business address sometimes does not provide 
information related to the country of origin where the component that 
is the subject of the recall was manufactured. Instead, this 
information may only identify the location of a distributor and have no 
bearing on the actual location of manufacture. We believe that it is 
important for the

[[Page 74118]]

agency to know where the component that is the subject of the recall is 
fabricated or assembled so as to appropriately focus follow-up 
activities of our Recall Management Division to ensure that products 
imported into this country meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards and are free of safety-related defects. Therefore, we 
are proposing to amend subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to add language 
requiring the reporting manufacturer to provide the country of origin 
of the component identified containing the defect or noncompliance. By 
country of origin, we intend for the reporting manufacturer to provide 
the location of the manufacturing or assembly process where the 
component is assembled or manufactured in its completed form. 
Accordingly, we propose to amend subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to read: 
``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 its 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 identity of the manufacturer of the 
component, it shall identify the entity from which it was obtained.''
    We seek comments on our proposal to require the reporting 
manufacturer to provide the country of origin for the component that 
contains the defect or noncompliance.

IV. Request for Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be 
more than 15 pages long.\15\ We established this limit to encourage you 
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may 
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no 
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) 
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical 
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search 
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to 
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon 
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by 
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment 
containing information claimed to be confidential business information, 
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted 
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of 
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. 
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the 
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit 
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should 
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing 
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document 
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other 
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also 
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the 
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

[[Page 74119]]

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.
    This document was reviewed under E.O. 12866 and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking 
action is not considered ``significant'' under Department of 
Transportation policies and procedures. The effects of these proposed 
rule changes have been analyzed in a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. 
Two of the proposed rule changes presented within this document would 
raise the reporting thresholds under EWR rules and have the effect of 
lowering the reporting burden on manufacturers of light vehicles and 
trailers. Although we are proposing to eliminate the reporting 
threshold for bus manufacturers, the result of this action will not 
impose a significant burden on this industry. Finally, the proposals 
being made within this document related to data consistency and the 
addition of reporting field for light vehicle manufacturers would place 
only a minimal burden on EWR manufacturers through a one-time 
adjustment to their EWR databases. The agency estimates that the 
proposal will result in a net annual reduction in costs of $3.5 
million.

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.
    This proposed rule would affect 237 manufacturers (30 light vehicle 
manufacturers, 190 trailer manufacturers, and 17 bus manufacturers). 
The rule would relieve reporting burdens currently imposed on some 
light vehicle manufacturers 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, light and heavy duty 
trucks, buses, or motor vehicle bodies are classified as a small 
business if they have fewer than 1,000 employees. For trailer 
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 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation in the docket of 
this rulemaking), NHTSA has concluded that the majority of the light 
vehicle manufacturers and almost all of the 190 trailer manufacturers 
that would be relieved of quarterly reports by this rule (except for 
instances of fatalities) are small businesses.
    In the bus industry, we estimate there are 45 businesses, 28 of 
which currently report to us and 17 of which will be required to report 
all EWR data to us. Of those 17 bus companies that would be required to 
report data fully under this rule, based on our review of publicly 
available information, we estimate that 11 companies are small 
businesses having fewer than 1,000 employees. In our view, 11 small 
businesses out of a total of 17 entities (64.7 percent) constitute a 
substantial number.
    To determine whether the proposal 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 $13,238 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 two smallest bus companies that are not a subsidiary 
of a larger company appear to be Ebus with 60 employees and U.S. Bus 
Corporation with 70 employees. U.S. Bus has sales revenues of $9.7 
million. Costs imposed by this rule would equal 0.17 percent of revenue 
($16,500 divided by $9,700,000), which the agency does not consider to 
be a significant economic impact. Based on publicly available 
information, Ebus sells approximately 12 vehicles per year at an 
estimated cost of about $100,000 each. Thus, its estimated revenues are 
at least $1.2 million and its costs under this rule would equal 1.37 
percent of revenue ($16,500 divided by $1,200,000), which the agency 
does not consider to be a significant economic impact.
    For the automobile and light truck manufacturers affected by this 
proposal, we estimate a cost savings of $47,282 per manufacturer. For 
trailer manufacturers affected by this proposal, we estimate a cost 
savings of $11,832 per manufacturer. Even though we do not have revenue 
estimates for these manufacturers, these are cost savings and not 
burdens and we do not believe that they are economically significant.
    In summary, while this proposal will affect a substantial number of 
small businesses (a majority of the light vehicle manufacturers, most 
of the trailer manufacturers, and 11 bus manufacturers), the agency 
believes that the proposal will not have a significant economic impact 
on those entities. Accordingly, I certify that this proposed 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 proposed 
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 proposed 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.

[[Page 74120]]

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 proposal would not result in expenditures by State, local 
or tribal governments of more than $130 million annually. The proposal 
would result in an annual savings of about $3.4 million. The Final Rule 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.
    NHTSA has published today's NPRM in order to reduce the reporting 
burden on manufacturers associated with Part 579. NHTSA believes that 
if this NPRM is made final, there will be a reduction of 26,247 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. Group A reports include 
reports that all manufacturers, regardless of industry, are required to 
submit if they meet the specific industry 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:

                                                 Group A Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    At present            NPRM                          Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims and notices of injury/   508.9 hours......  508.4 hours......  -0.4 hours.
 fatality.
Property damage...............  1200.6 hours.....  1198.3 hours.....  -2.3 hours.
Field reports.................  12,691.5 hours...  12,686.25 hours..  -5.25 hours.
Foreign Death claims..........  18 hours.........  18 hours.........  0.
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total change of -8 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bus Manufacturers--As noted, if the NPRM is made final, there will 
be an extra collection of information burden on bus manufacturers. 
NHTSA estimates that bus manufacturers will file an additional 7 claims 
and notices of injury/fatality reports a year, for a total of 35 
minutes. NHTSA estimates an additional 19 reports on property damage, 
for a total of 95 minutes. NHTSA estimates an additional 579 
manufacturer field reports, for a total of 2,895 minutes. NHTSA 
estimates there will be no additional foreign death claim reports. 
Thus, if the NPRM is made final, NHTSA estimates there will be an 
additional 605 reports or 50.42 burden hours on bus manufacturers.
    50.42 additional burden hours minus 8 hours of reduced burden on 
other vehicle manufacturers that submit Group A reports, results in a 
total of 42.42 burden hours a year if this NPRM is made final.
Group B Reports
    Group B reports consist of warranty claims, consumer complaints, 
and dealer field reports. If this NPRM is made final, the number of 
manufacturers reporting on light vehicles will be reduced from 56 to 26 
(a reduction of 30 manufacturers) or -636.5 burden hours. The number of 
bus manufacturers reporting will increase from 28 to 45 (an addition of 
17 manufacturers) for a total of +225.4 burden hours. The number of 
trailer manufacturers will decrease from 251 to 61 (a reduction of 190 
trailer manufacturers), or -503.93 burden hours.
    Thus, if this NPRM is made final, NHTSA estimates there will be a 
reduction of 915 burden hours on vehicle manufacturers for Group B 
reports.
Computer Maintenance Burden Hours
    If this NPRM is made final, there will be 30 fewer light vehicle 
manufacturers reporting, or 30 x 347 burden hours per manufacturer, for 
-10,410 fewer burden hours. There will be 17 more bus manufacturers 
reporting, or 17 x 86.52 burden hours per manufacturer, for a total 
increase of +1470.84 more burden hours on bus manufacturers. There will 
be 190 fewer trailer manufacturers reporting multiplied by 86.5 burden 
hours each, for a total of -16,435 burden hours for trailer 
manufacturers. Thus, there will be a reduction of 25,374 burden hours 
on industry resulting from computer maintenance, if this NPRM is made 
final.

      Total Burden Hours on Industry, if Today's NPRM Is Made Final
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A Reports...........................  + 42 burden hours.
Group B Reports...........................  -915 burden hours.
Computer Maintenance Reports..............  -25,374 burden hours.
                                           -----------------------------
    Grand total...........................  -26,247 burden hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74121]]

For these reasons, if this NPRM is made final, NHTSA believes industry 
will incur 26,247 fewer burden hours a year in reporting requirements 
to NHTSA.

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.
    This rulemaking 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. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

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 proposed by today's document 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 proposed rule change 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.

VII. Proposed Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes that 49 CFR parts 
573 and 579 be amended as set forth below:

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS

    1. The authority citation for part 573 is revised 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 Sec.  573.6 by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  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 list of 
tire identification numbers), 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 its 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 identity of the manufacturer of the 
component, it shall identify the entity from which it was obtained.
* * * * *
    3. Revise Sec.  573.9 to read as follows:

Sec.  573.9  Address for submitting required reports and other 
information.

    All submissions, except as otherwise required by this part, shall 
be addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Recall Management 
Division (NVS-215), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
These submissions may be submitted as an attachment to an e-mail 
message to RMD.ODI@dot.gov in a portable document format (.pdf). Tire 
Identification Numbers that are required to be submitted pursuant to 
Sec.  573.6(c)(2)(iii) may be submitted as an attachment to the 
aforementioned e-mail message and provided in a commercially available 
text format (e.g. Microsoft Access or Excel) or, if the manufacturer 
has an early warning reporting identification and password pursuant to 
49 CFR 579.28, submitted to NHTSA's tire identification number 
repository identified on the Office of Defects' Internet homepage 
(http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/safetrecall/TINupload). Whether or not 
these submissions are also submitted electronically, defect or 
noncompliance reports required by Sec.  573.6 of this part must be 
submitted by certified mail in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118(c).

PART 579--REPORTING OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT 
POTENTIAL DEFECTS

    4. The authority citation for part 579 is amended 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

    5. Amend Sec.  579.4 by adding at the end of paragraph (b) a new 
sentence and amending paragraph (c) by revising the definitions of 
``Model,'' ``Other safety

[[Page 74122]]

campaign,'' and ``Service brake system'' and adding the definition of 
``Fuel and/or propulsion system type'' in alphabetical order, to read 
as follows:

Sec.  579.4  Terminology.

* * * * *
    (b) Regulatory terms. * * * The term Electronic Stability Control 
System is used as defined in S4. of Sec.  571.126 of this chapter.
    (c) Other terms. * * *
* * * * *
    Fuel and/or propulsion system type means the variety of fuel and/or 
propulsion systems used in a vehicle, coded as follows: 01 gasoline 
only, 02 diesel only, 03 gasoline--dual fueled, 04 diesel--dual fueled, 
05 hybrid--gas/electric, 06 hybrid--diesel/electric, 07 electric--
battery, 08 electric--hydrogen fuel cell, 09 natural gas, 10 liquefied 
petroleum gas, 11 hydrogen internal combustion, 12 alcohol only, 13 
other.
* * * * *
    Model means a name that a manufacturer of motor vehicles applies to 
a family of vehicles within a make that have a degree of commonality in 
construction, such as body, chassis or cab type. For light vehicles, if 
a model has sub-models with different fuel and/or propulsion system 
types, it means each such sub-model. 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 
shell, buckle, base (if so equipped) and restraint system.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    Service brake system means all components of the service braking 
system of a motor vehicle intended for the transfer of braking 
application force from the operator to the wheels of a vehicle, 
including the foundation braking system, such as the brake pedal, 
master cylinder, fluid lines and hoses, braking assist components, 
brake calipers, wheel cylinders, brake discs, brake drums, brake pads, 
brake shoes, and other related equipment installed in a motor vehicle 
in order to comply with FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, 122, or 135 (except 
equipment relating specifically to a parking brake). This term also 
includes systems and devices for automatic control of the brake system 
such as antilock braking, traction control, and enhanced braking, but 
does not include systems or devices necessary for electronic stability 
control. The term includes all associated switches, control units, 
connective elements (such as wiring harnesses, hoses, piping, etc.), 
and mounting elements (such as brackets, fasteners, etc.).
* * * * *

Subpart C--Reporting of Early Warning Information

    6. Amend Sec.  579.21 by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising the introductory text;
    c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2);
    d. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c); and
    e. Adding a fifth sentence to paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  579.21  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5000 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 5000 
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 (separately 
reported by fuel and/or propulsion system type and code), and model 
year of light 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) * * *
    (2) For each incident described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall separately report the make, model 
(separately reported by fuel and/or propulsion system type and code), 
model year, the type and VIN of the vehicle, the incident date, the 
number of deaths, the number of injuries for incidents occurring in the 
United States, the State or foreign country where the incident 
occurred, each system or component of the vehicle that allegedly 
contributed to the incident, and whether the incident involved a fire 
or rollover, coded as follows: 01 steering system, 02 suspension 
system, 03 service brake system, 05 parking brake, 06 engine and engine 
cooling system, 07 fuel system, 10 power train, 11 electrical system, 
12 exterior lighting, 13 visibility, 14 air bags, 15 seat belts, 16 
structure, 17 latch, 18 vehicle speed control, 19 tires, 20 wheels, 22 
seats, 23 fire, 24 rollover, 25 electronic stability control system, 98 
where a system or component not covered by categories 01 through 22 or 
25, is specified in the claim or notice, and 99 where no system or 
component of the vehicle is specified in the claim or notice. * * *
    (c) Numbers of property damage claims, consumer complaints, 
warranty claims, and field reports. Separate reports on the numbers of 
those property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and 
field reports which involve the systems and components that are 
specified in codes 01 through 22, or 25 in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, or a fire (code 23), or rollover (code 24). * * * For each 
report, the manufacturer shall separately state the vehicle type if the 
manufacturer stated more than one vehicle type for a particular make, 
model, model year in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec.  579.22 by revising the section heading and by 
revising the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  579.22  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of buses and 
manufacturers of 500 or more medium-heavy vehicles (other than buses) 
annually.

    For each reporting period, any manufacturer who has manufactured 
for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for 
introduction in interstate commerce, or imported one or more buses into 
the United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period or 
during either of the prior two calendar years shall submit the 
information described in this section. For each reporting period, any 
manufacturer who has manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 
introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or 
imported a total of 500 or more medium-heavy vehicles (a sum that does 
not include buses) shall submit the information described in this 
section.

[[Page 74123]]

For paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, the manufacturer shall 
submit information separately with respect to each make, model, and 
model year of medium-heavy vehicle and/or bus 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.
* * * * *
    8. Amend Sec.  579.24 by revising the section heading and by 
revising the first sentence of the introductory text to read as 
follows:

Sec.  579.24  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5000 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 5000 or more shall 
submit the information described in this section. * * *
* * * * *
    9. Amend Sec.  579.27 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:

Sec.  579.27  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of fewer than 
500 medium-heavy vehicles or motorcycles annually, for manufacturers of 
fewer than 5000 light vehicles or trailers annually, for manufacturers 
of original equipment, and for manufacturers of replacement equipment 
other than child restraint systems and tires.

* * * * *
    10. Amend Sec.  579.29 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  579.29  Manner of reporting.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For each report required under paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
Sec. Sec.  579.21 through 579.26 and submitted in the manner provided 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a manufacturer must provide a 
make, model and model year that is identical to the make, model, model 
year provided in the manufacturer's previous report. A manufacturer 
that intends to provide a make, model, model year in its report that is 
not identical to the manufacturer's previous report, must notify NHTSA 
by populating the appropriate field in the template required under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
* * * * *

    Issued on: November 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8-28873 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P