Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/12/05/E8-28873/early-warning-reporting-regulations
Timestamp: 2015-11-30 00:50:54
Document Index: 307496695

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 579', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'arts 573', 'ART 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', 'ART 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 571', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579']

Publication Date: Friday, December 05, 2008
Dates: Written comments regarding these proposed rule changes may be submitted to NHTSA and must be received on or before: February 3, 2009.
Comments Close: 02/03/2009
-74123 (23 pages)
Document Number: E8-28873
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-28873 Related Topics
Early Warning Reporting Information 3 actions from December 5th, 2008 to February 2010
H. Data Consistency I. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
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 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. 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.
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.
The Safety Act also requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA and owners and purchasers of the vehicle or equipment if the manufacturer determines that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) (c). Manufacturers must provide notification pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section 30119 sets forth the contents of the notification, which includes a clear description of the defect or noncompliance, the timing of the notification, means of providing notification and when a second notification is required. 49 U.S.C. 30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 confers considerable authority and discretion to NHTSA, by rulemaking, to require additional information in manufacturers' notifications. See 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting
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
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)),
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.
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. 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.
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.”
69 FR 3297.
Furthermore, manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 light vehicles annually do not submit large numbers of copies of non-dealer field reports.
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.
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 more VOQs from owners of light vehicles than any other industry sector in EWR.
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 2,500 trailers. Ultimately, the concerns identified did not result in ODI opening a defects investigation.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 eliminated from the requirements of quarterly EWR reporting.
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.
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 investigations and identify possible safety-related defects.
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.
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.
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 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
) to being relatively far from completion (such as a stripped chassis
). 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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 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)
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).”
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,
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).”
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 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.”
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.
V. Privacy Act Statement Back to Top
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. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform”
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.
Group A Reports Back to Top
Claims and notices of injury/fatality
508.9 hours
508.4 hours
−0.4 hours.
1200.6 hours
1198.3 hours
−2.3 hours.
12,691.5 hours
12,686.25 hours
−5.25 hours.
Total Burden Hours on Industry, if Today's NPRM Is Made Final Back to Top
+ 42 burden hours.
−915 burden hours.
Computer Maintenance Reports
−25,374 burden hours.
−26,247 burden hours.
VII. Proposed Regulatory Text Back to Top
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 579 Back to Top
PART 573—DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS Back to Top
49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-30121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
2. Amend § 573.6 by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows:
3. Revise § 573.9 to read as follows:
§ 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 § 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 § 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 Back to Top
49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
5. Amend § 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 campaign,” and “Service brake system” and adding the definition of “Fuel and/or propulsion system type” in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
§ 579.4 Terminology.
(b) Regulatory terms.* * * The term Electronic Stability Control System is used as defined in S4. of § 571.126 of this chapter.
(c) Other terms.* * *
Subpart C—Reporting of Early Warning Information Back to Top
6. Amend § 579.21 by:
§ 579.21 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5000 or more light vehicles annually.
7. Amend § 579.22 by revising the section heading and by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
§ 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. 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 § 579.24 by revising the section heading and by revising the first sentence of the introductory text to read as follows:
§ 579.24 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5000 or more trailers annually.
9. Amend § 579.27 by revising the section heading to read as follows:
§ 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 § 579.29 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 579.29 Manner of reporting.
(3) For each report required under paragraphs (a) through (c) of §§ 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.
8. NHTSA's 2006 Motorcycle Traffic Safety Facts, March, 2008, is located at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810806.PDF.