Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/20/2013-19785/early-warning-reporting-foreign-defect-reporting-and-motor-vehicle-and-equipment-recall-regulations
Timestamp: 2014-03-08 04:39:49
Document Index: 273038897

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 579', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 577', 'art 577', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 579', 'arts 573', 'arts 573', 'ART 573', 'ART 577', 'art 579', 'art 579', 'arts 573', 'art 579', 'art 579', 'art 573', 'art 579', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 571', '§ 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', 'art 577', 'art 579', 'art 579', '§ 579', 'art 573', 'art 577', '§ 31301', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'arts 573', 'arts 573', '§ 579', 'art 573', 'art 573', 'art 573', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', 'art 579', '§ 579', '§ 579', 'art 573', 'art 577', 'art 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', '§ 573', 'art 573', '§ 573']

Federal Register | Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor Vehicle and Equipment Recall Regulations
Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor Vehicle and Equipment Recall Regulations
A Rule by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on
Dates: This rule is effective October 21, 2013, except the amendments to 49 CFR 573.9, 49 CFR 573.15, and 49 CFR part 579, which are effective August 20, 2014, and the amendment to 49 CFR 577.5, which is effective February 18, 2014. For more details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
78 FR 51381
-51462 (82 pages)
49 CFR 577
Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0068
2127-AK72
Document Number: 2013-19785
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-19785 Related Topics
NHTSA is adopting amendments to certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) rule and the regulations governing motor vehicle and equipment safety recalls. The amendments to the EWR rule require light vehicle manufacturers to specify the vehicle type and the fuel and/or propulsion system type in their reports and add new component categories of stability control systems for light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers, and forward collision avoidance, lane departure prevention, and backover prevention for light vehicle manufacturers. These amendments will also require light vehicle manufacturers to segregate their Service Brake EWR data into two new discrete component categories. In addition, NHTSA will require motor vehicle manufacturers to report their annual list of substantially similar vehicles via the Internet.
As to safety recalls, we will now require certain manufacturers to provide a VIN-based recalls lookup tool on their Web site or the Web site of a third party; require the submission of recalls reports and information via the Internet; and require adjustments to the required content of the owner notification letters and envelopes required to be issued to owners and purchasers of recalled vehicles and equipment.
Early Warning Reporting and Foreign Defect Reporting Regulation (MAP-21) 3 actions from September 10th, 2012 to July 2013
77 FR 55605
A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule
B. The Foreign Defect Reporting Rule
C. Domestic Safety Defect and Noncompliance Recalls
II. Summary of the NPRM
A. Summary of Our Proposals Affecting Early Warning Rule and Foreign Defect Reporting
B. Summary of Our Proposals Affecting Safety Recalls Reporting, Administration, and Execution
III. Scope of This Rulemaking
IV. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
A. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM as to the Early Warning Reporting and Foreign Defect Reporting Proposals
B. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM as to the Domestic Safety Recall Proposals
V. Agency Response to Comments and Decisions
A. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Early Warning Reporting and Foreign Defect Reporting
1. Matters Considered in Adding Data Elements to Early Warning Reports
2. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
3. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
4. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
ii. Forward Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure Prevention
iii. Segregation of “Service Brakes” Category Into Two New Categories, “Foundation Brake Systems” and “Automatic Brake Controls”
iv. Backover Prevention
5. EWR Reporting Templates
6. Electronic Submission of Annual Substantially Similar Vehicle Lists
B. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Domestic Safety Recalls Requirements
1. Public Availability of Vehicle Recall Completion Information
i. Who Is Required To Provide Publicly Accessible Vehicle Safety Recall Completion Information
ii. Decision To Adopt Alternative Proposal To Require Covered Manufacturers To Provide Vehicle Safety Recall Completion Information on Their Own or a Third Party's Internet Site
iii. Scope of the Safety Recalls Information That Covered Vehicle Manufacturers Must Make Available
iv. Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM and Agency Responses
v. Specific Criteria for Manufacturer Safety Recalls Lookup Completion Tools
2. Requirements Related to the Information Required To Be Submitted in a Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Information Report
i. An Identification and Description of the Risk Associated With the Safety Defect or Noncompliance with FMVSS
ii. As to Motor Vehicle Equipment Recalls, the Brand Name, Model Name, and Model Number of the Equipment Recalled
iii. Disclaimers in Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Information Report
3. Internet Submission of Recall-Related Reports, Information, and Associated Documents and Recall Reporting Templates
4. Amendments to Defect and Noncompliance Notification Requirements Under Part 577
i. 60-Day Requirement to Mail Part 577 Owner Notification Letters
ii. “IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL” on Owner Notification Letters
iii. Inclusion of Vehicle Identification Numbers in Owner Notification Letters
iv. Inclusion of Standardized Label on Owner Notification Letter Envelopes
5. Requirements for Manufacturers to Keep NHTSA Informed of Changes and Updates in Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports
i. Submission of Information Not Available at the Time of the Initial Part 573 Report, and Amended Information, Within Five Working Days
ii. 90-Day Review of Part 573 Information Report for Completeness and Accuracy
6. Requirement To Notify NHTSA in the Event of Filing of Bankruptcy Petition of a Recalling Manufacturer
VI. Lead Time
VII. Privacy Act Statement
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures
1. Part 579Collections
a. Adjusted Estimates for Current Information Collections
b. New Collections
2. Parts 573 and 577 Collections
b. New Collections Associated With the Final Rule
H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Data Quality Act
J. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579
PART 573—DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS
PART 577—DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
Subpart C—Reporting of Early Warning Information
This rule is effective October 21, 2013, except the amendments to 49 CFR 573.9, 49 CFR 573.15, and 49 CFR part 579, which are effective August 20, 2014, and the amendment to 49 CFR 577.5, which is effective February 18, 2014. For more details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by October 4, 2013.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for on-line access to the docket.
For non-legal issues on EWR requirements, contact Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA (telephone: 202-366-5559). For non-legal issues on recall requirements, contact Jennifer Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA (telephone: 202-366-0209). For legal issues, contact Andrew J. DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (telephone: 202-366-5263). You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
Effective Dates Back to Top
The effective dates of the requirements in this final rule are as follows: all amendments to the EWR rule reporting requirements, and contained within 49 CFR part 579, August 20, 2014; requirement of certain large volume light vehicle and motorcycle manufacturers to provide publicly accessible vehicle safety recall completion information, and contained within 49 CFR 573.15, August 20, 2014; requirement to submit safety recall-related reports, information, and associated documents through a secure portal on NHTSA's Web site, and contained within 49 CFR 573.9, August 20, 2014; requirement to include the standardized label on all safety recall owner notification letter envelopes, and contained within 49 CFR 577.5, February 18, 2014; all other amendments to the safety recall reporting and notification requirements addressed in this final rule, and contained within 49 CFR parts 573 and 577, October 21, 2013.
i. Stability Control Systems
iii. Segregate “Service Brakes” Category Into Two New Categories, “Foundation Brakes” and “Automatic Brake Controls”
5. Proposed EWR Reporting Templates
B. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Domestic Safety Recall Requirements
1. Part 579 Collection
J. Executive Order 13609
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background Back to Top
In 2000, Congress enacted the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Public Law 106-414. Up until the TREAD Act's enactment, NHTSA relied primarily on analyses of complaints from consumers and technical service bulletins (TSBs) from manufacturers to identify potential safety related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Congress concluded that NHTSA did not have access to data that may provide an earlier warning of safety defects or information related to foreign recalls and safety campaigns. Accordingly, the TREAD Act required that NHTSA prescribe rules requiring motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to submit certain information to NHTSA that would assist identifying potential safety related defects and to require manufacturers to submit reports on foreign defects and safety campaigns. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m) and (l).
On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published its Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations requiring that motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers provide certain early warning data. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C; see 67 FR 45822. The EWR rule requires 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 and product evaluation reports) involving specified vehicle components, a fire, or a rollover.
As described more fully in the section, below, EWR 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. The EWR information NHTSA receives is stored in a database, called Artemis, which also contains additional information (e.g., domestic and foreign recall details and complaints filed directly by consumers) related to defects and investigations.
The Early Warning Division of the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of early warning data and documents submitted by manufacturers. Using its traditional sources of information, such as consumer complaints from vehicle owner questionnaires (VOQs) and manufacturers' own communications, and the additional information provided by EWR submissions, ODI investigates potential safety defects. These investigations often result in recalls.
In the last several years, the agency published two amendments to the EWR regulations. On May 29, 2007, NHTSA made three changes to the EWR rule. 72 FR 29435. First, the definition of “fire” was amended to more accurately capture fire-related events. 72 FR 29443. Second, the agency eliminated the requirement to produce hard copies of a subset of field reports known as “product evaluation reports.”Id. Last, the agency limited the time that manufacturers must update a missing vehicle identification number (VIN)/tire identification number (TIN) information or a component in a death or injury incident to a period of no more than one year after NHTSA receives the initial report. 72 FR 29444. On December 5, 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which was followed in September 2009 by a final rule that modified the reporting threshold for light vehicle, bus, medium-heavy vehicle (excluding emergency vehicles), motorcycle and trailer manufacturers' quarterly EWR reports. See 73 FR 74101 (December 5, 2008); 74 FR 47740, 47757-58 (September 17, 2009). This rule further required manufacturers to submit EWR reports with consistent product names from quarter to quarter and amended part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to require tire manufacturers to provide tire identification number ranges for recalled tires. 74 FR 47757-58. The final rule also stated that manufacturers must provide the country of origin for a recalled component. Id. Last, the rule amended the definition of “other safety campaign” to be consistent with the definition of “customer satisfaction campaign.”Id.
The September 2009 rule did not address several proposals in the preceding December 2008 NPRM. Those proposals sought to require light vehicle manufacturers to include the vehicle type in the aggregate portion of their quarterly EWR reports, report on use of electronic stability control in light vehicles, and specify fuel and/or propulsion systems when providing model designations. Id. The agency decided to issue a separate rulemaking addressing some of the foregoing proposals to obtain more meaningful comments. See 74 FR 47744. This final rule addresses those proposals raised in the December 2008 NPRM not resolved by the September 2009 final rule.
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 as the Safety Act. See 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, specifically 30166(m)(3)(B), 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: “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. Per 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D), 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.
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 that meet certain production thresholds that produce light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) tire manufacturers that produce over a certain number per tire line; and (c) all manufacturers of child restraints. Light vehicle, motorcycle, trailer and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers except buses and emergency vehicles that produced, imported, offered for sale, or sold 5,000 or more vehicles annually in the United States are required to report comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. Emergency vehicle manufacturers must report if they produced, imported, offered for sale, or sold 500 or more vehicles annually and bus manufacturers must report if they produced, imported or offered for sale, or sold 100 or more buses annually in the United States. Passenger car tire, light truck tire and motorcycle tire manufacturers that produced, imported, offered for sale, or sold 15,000 or more tires per tire line are also required to provide comprehensive quarterly reports. The first group must provide comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. 49 CFR 579.21-579.26. The second group consists of all other manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (i.e., vehicle manufacturers that produce, import, or sell in the United States fewer than 5,000 light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles (excluding emergency vehicles and buses), motorcycles, or trailers annually; vehicle manufacturers that produce, import, or sell in the United States fewer than 500 emergency vehicles annually; vehicle manufacturers that produce, import, or sell in the United States fewer than 100 buses annually; manufacturers of original motor vehicle equipment; and manufacturers of replacement motor vehicle equipment other than child restraint systems and tires). The second group has limited reporting responsibility.
49 CFR 579.27.
Light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 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.
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).
Warranty claims paid by the manufacturer pursuant to a warranty program (in the tire industry these are warranty adjustment claims).
Field reports (a report prepared by an employee or representative of the manufacturer concerning the failure, malfunction, lack of durability or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment).
For property damage claims, warranty claims, consumer complaints and field reports, light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 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, light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers are required to submit copies of field reports, except for dealer and product evaluation reports.
On a quarterly basis, vehicle and equipment manufacturers meeting the production thresholds discussed above must provide comprehensive reports for each make and model for the calendar year of the report and nine previous model years for vehicles and four years for equipment. The vehicle systems or components on which manufacturers provide information vary depending upon the type of vehicle or equipment manufactured. 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. Bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers must provide reports on an additional four (4) vehicle components or systems: service brake air, fuel system diesel, fuel system other, and trailer hitch.
The TREAD Act also amended 49 U.S.C. 30166 to add a new subsection (l) to address reporting of foreign defects and other safety campaigns by vehicle and equipment manufacturers. This section requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA if the manufacturer or a foreign government determines that the manufacturer should conduct a recall or other safety campaign on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is identical or substantially similar to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment offered for sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(l). Subsection (l) does not define “identical” or the term “substantially similar.” Under the TREAD Act's foreign defect reporting provisions, NHTSA is to specify the contents of the notification. Id.
On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published regulations implementing foreign motor vehicle and product defect reporting provisions of the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(l). 67 FR 63295, 63310; 49 CFR part 579, subpart B. The Foreign Defect Reporting rule requires certain motor vehicle manufacturers and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report information and submit documents to NHTSA when a manufacturer or a foreign government determines that a safety recall or other safety campaign should be conducted in a foreign country for products that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or items of equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(l)(1) (2). To assist the agency's program implementation, manufacturers must submit an annual list of substantially similar vehicles to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.11(e). This list is due by November 1 of each year. Manufacturers may submit their substantially similar vehicle list by mail, facsimile or by email. 49 CFR 579.6(a). NHTSA offers a Microsoft Excel template on its Web site http://www.safercar.gov/ that manufacturers can download and use to upload their substantially similar lists directly to NHTSA's Artemis database. The vast majority of manufacturers submit their substantially similar list by uploading the template directly to the agency.
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, or part 573 Information Reports, as the case may be) to NHTSA on defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and noncompliances with motor vehicle safety standards found in 49 CFR part 571.
Section 573.6 specifies the information that manufacturers are required to submit to the agency and § 573.9 specifies the address for submitting reports. One element is the identification of the vehicles containing the defect or noncompliance. Section 573.6(c)(2)(i) requires manufacturers to identify passenger cars by the make, line, model year, the dates of manufacture and other information as necessary to describe the vehicles. For all other vehicles, § 573.6(c)(2)(ii) requires manufacturers to identify the vehicles by body style or type, dates of manufacture and any other information as necessary to describe the vehicle, such as the GVWR. Section 573.6(c)(3) requires manufacturers to submit the total number of vehicles that potentially contain the defect or noncompliance.
Section 573.8 requires manufacturers to maintain lists of VINs of the vehicles involved in a recall as well as the remedy status for each vehicle to be included in a manufacturer's quarterly reporting as specified in § 573.7.
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(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 on NHTSA, by rulemaking, to require additional information in a manufacturer's notification. See 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7).
The conduct of a recall notification campaign, including how and when owners, dealers, and distributors are notified, is addressed by regulation in 49 CFR part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification. Section 577.5 specifies required content and structure of the owner notifications. Section 577.13 specifies required content for dealer and distributor notifications. Section 577.7 dictates the time and manner of these notifications.
In July 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. See Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (July 6, 2012). Sections 31301 of the MAP-21 Act mandates that the Secretary require that motor vehicle safety recall information be made available to the public on the Internet, and it provides authority to the Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct a rulemaking to require each manufacturer to provide its safety recall information on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Under section 31301(a), Congress has directed the Secretary to require motor vehicle safety information be available on the Internet, searchable by vehicle make, model and VIN, preserves consumer privacy and includes information regarding completion of the particular recall. Section 31301(b) authorizes the Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct a rulemaking requiring manufacturers to provide the safety recall information in paragraph (a) on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Specifically, section 31301(a) states:
(a) VEHICLE RECALL INFORMATION.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall require that motor vehicle safety recall information—
(1) be available to the public on the Internet;
(2) be searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number;
(3) be in a format that preserves consumer privacy; and
(4) includes information about each recall that has not been completed for each vehicle.
Section 31301(a) did not directly speak to the mechanism for implementing its requirements, leaving the agency to use its discretion to fill any ambiguity. Paragraph (a) is silent with respect to who is required to make safety recall information available, which manufacturers are subject to the requirement, the types of safety information to be made available, and how and when the information is placed on the Internet.
Paragraph (b) provides the Secretary with the authority to conduct a rulemaking to provide the information in subsection (a) and provides limited instructions as to the scope of any such rulemaking and sharing such information with automobile dealers and consumers. Section 31301(b) states:
(b) RULEMAKING.—The Secretary may initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require each manufacturer to provide the information described in subsection (a), with respect to that manufacturer's motor vehicles, on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Any rules promulgated under this subsection—
(1) shall limit the information that must be made available under this section to include only those recalls issued not more than 15 years prior to the date of enactment of [MAP-21].
(2) may require information under paragraph (1) to be provided to a dealer or an owner of a vehicle at no charge; and
(3) shall permit a manufacturer a reasonable period of time after receiving information from a dealer with respect to a vehicle to update the information about the vehicle on the publicly accessible Internet Web site.
Similar to paragraph (a) of 31301, paragraph (b) vests considerable discretion in the agency to conduct a rulemaking to meet the statutory goals of section 31301. The MAP-21 Act further specifies that a manufacturer's filing of a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, does not negate its duty to comply with, among other things, the defect and noncompliance notification and reporting obligations, and the requirement to provide a free remedy, under the Safety Act.
II. Summary of the NPRM Back to Top
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. The EWR rule divides vehicle manufacturers into different segments based upon weight or vehicle application. These segments are light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, motorcycles and trailers. The proposed amendments to the EWR rule concern light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles.
We proposed requiring light vehicle manufacturers to report vehicle type in their death and injury and aggregate reports. Under the current EWR rule, light vehicle manufacturers submit vehicle type as part of production reports, but do not report vehicle types in either their death and injury reports or their aggregate reports. We proposed a solution to this inconsistency.
We proposed to require reporting on additional components in the light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle, and medium-heavy vehicle component categories and to amend the light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle, and medium-heavy vehicle reporting templates.
We proposed to add a requirement that light vehicle manufacturers provide the fuel and/or propulsion system type for nine (9) different fuel and/or propulsion system types. In addition, the proposal would add definitions for each fuel and/or propulsion system.
Furthermore, we proposed to add four (4) new light vehicle and one (1) new medium-heavy vehicle component reporting categories. The new light vehicle component categories are electronic stability control, forward collision avoidance, lane departure prevention, and backover prevention; the new medium-heavy vehicle component category is stability control/roll stability control. We also proposed new definitions for each of these components. We also proposed to correct a minor inconsistency in light vehicle manufacturer reporting of vehicle types to capture several recently introduced light vehicle technologies.
We proposed and requested comments on amendments to a manufacturer's reporting requirements related to safety recalls and other safety campaigns in foreign countries under subpart B of part 579. We proposed to standardize the manner of submitting annual lists of substantially similar vehicles under § 579.11(e) by uploading them, via a secure internet connection, to NHTSA's Artemis database using a template provided on NHTSA's EWR Web site. Currently, manufacturers may submit their substantially similar lists by mail, facsimile or email. See 49 CFR 579.6(a).
The NPRM proposed changes and additions to the regulations governing recalls, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification.
We proposed a number of measures in an effort to improve the information the agency receives from recalling manufacturers concerning the motor vehicles and equipment they are recalling and the plans for remedying those products, in addition to distribution of that information to the affected public.
First, for motor vehicle recalls, and in accordance with the MAP-21 Act, we proposed to adopt regulations that would implement MAP-21's mandate that the Secretary require motor vehicle safety recall information be made available to the public on the Internet, be searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number (VIN), be in a format that preserves consumer privacy, and includes information about each recall that has not been completed for each vehicle. See MAP-21 Act, Public Law 112-141, § 31301, 126 Stat 405, 763 (July 6, 2012). The Secretary was given the discretion to engage in rulemaking to require a manufacturer to provide the information above on vehicles it manufacturers on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Id. at section 31301(b). We proposed to exercise the authority given the Secretary in sections (a) and (b), not only to meet the Act's mandate, but to increase the numbers of motor vehicles remedied under safety recall campaigns which, in turn, will serve to reduce the risk of incidents, as well as injuries or fatalities, associated with vehicles that contain safety defects or fail to meet minimum FMVSS.
To meet MAP-21, and increase the number of motor vehicles remedied under safety recall campaigns, the agency proposed to offer vehicle owners and prospective purchasers an enhanced vehicle recalls search tool through its Web site, www.safercar.gov, that would go beyond the current functionality to search by specific make and model vehicle, and would offer a VIN-based search function that would report back whether a vehicle has been subject to a safety recall, and whether that vehicle has had the manufacturer's free remedy performed.
In order to gather the information necessary for us to provide this enhanced functionality, we proposed to require larger volume, light vehicle manufacturers to submit the VINs for vehicles affected by a safety recall to NHTSA. We further proposed to require these manufacturers to submit to NHTSA recall remedy completion information on those vehicles, again supplied by VIN, that would be updated at least once daily so that our search tool had “real time” information that could inform owners and other interested parties if a recall is outstanding on a vehicle. In our effort to improve the information received from recalling manufacturers, and so NHTSA could better understand and process recalls, we proposed to require certain additional items of information from recalling manufacturers. These additional items included an identification and description of the risk associated with the safety defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS, and, as to motor vehicle equipment recalls, the brand name, model name, and model number, of the equipment recalled. We also proposed that manufacturers be prohibited from including disclaimers in their part 573 information reports.
Similarly, as part of our effort to ensure we are apprised of information related to safety recalls, we proposed that manufacturers update their Part 573 Reports with information missing from the initial report, or newly updated information, within five working days of learning the information. We also proposed that, within 90 days of a recall's available remedy, the manufacturer review its Part 573 Report for completeness and accuracy and supplement or amend it as necessary to comply with part 573.
We proposed to require manufacturers to submit through a secure, agency-owned and managed web-based application, all recall-related reports, information, and associated documents. We explained that we believed this would improve our efficiency and accuracy in collecting and processing important recalls information and then distributing it to the public. It would also reduce a current and significant allocation of agency resources spent translating and processing the same information that is currently submitted in a free text fashion, whether that text is delivered via a hard copy, mailed submission, or delivered electronically through email.
In order to ensure that owners are promptly notified of safety defects and failures to meet minimum safety standards, we proposed to specify that manufacturers notify owners and purchasers no later than 60 days after a safety defect or noncompliance decision is made. In the event the free remedy is not available at the time of notification, we proposed that manufacturers be required to issue a second notification to owners and purchasers once that remedy is available.
In an effort to encourage owners to have recall repairs made to their vehicles and vehicle equipment, we proposed additional requirements governing the content and formatting of owner notification letters and the envelopes in which they are mailed in an effort to improve the number of vehicles that receive a remedy under a recall. We proposed that all letters include “URGENT SAFETY RECALL” in all capital letters and in an enlarged font at the top of those letters, and that for vehicle recalls, the manufacturer place the VIN of the owner's vehicle affected by the safety defect or noncompliance, within the letter. To further emphasize the importance of the communication, and to distinguish it from other commercial communications, we proposed that the envelopes in which the letters are mailed be stamped with the logos of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation, along with a statement that the letter is an important safety recall notice issued in accordance with Federal law.
Lastly, we proposed to add a requirement for manufacturers to notify the agency in the event they file for bankruptcy. We explained that this requirement would help us preserve our ability to take necessary and appropriate measures to ensure recalling manufacturers, or others such as corporate successors, continue to honor obligations to provide free remedies to owners of unsafe vehicle and equipment products.
III. Scope of This Rulemaking Back to Top
Today's final rule is limited in scope to amendments to the EWR requirements, the foreign defect reporting rule, and to the requirements associated with safety recall reporting, administration, and execution as delineated in parts 573 and 577 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Apart from the following changes noted below in the summary section, NHTSA intends to leave the remaining current EWR, foreign defect reporting regulations, and safety recalls implementing regulations parts 573, 577 and 579 unchanged.
IV. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM Back to Top
We are implementing a one-year lead time from the date this final rule is published for the electronic-only submission of annual substantially similar vehicle listings, § 579.11(e).
We are subdividing the light vehicle Service Brakes component code into Foundation Braking Systems and Automatic Brake Controls.
We did not adopt the requirement that large, light vehicle manufacturers report recalled VINs to NHTSA.
We adopted the alternative proposal that requires large, light vehicle manufacturers to provide a VIN-based recall lookup tool on their Internet Web sites that meets certain performance-based criteria.
We did not adopt the prohibition against the use of disclaimers, or language that disavows the presence of a safety-related defect or noncompliance, in a manufacturer's Part 573 Information Report.
We did not adopt the requirement that manufacturers review their Part 573 Information Reports for completeness and accuracy 90-days after launching the recall remedy campaign.
We adopted with slight changes the requirement that a manufacturer update and submit new information to its Part 573 Information Report. Today's rule requires updates and new information within five (5) working days from when the manufacturer has confirmed the accuracy of the information, which is different than our proposal to require that the information be submitted within five (5) days of becoming available.
We adopted the proposal to mandate the use of a specific label on the envelopes containing the manufacturer's notification to an owner, but agree with commenters that manufacturers have the discretion to decide where to place the label on the front of the envelope.
We adopted the proposal to require vehicle manufacturers to place the vehicle's VIN in the notification to that vehicle's owner, but leave to their discretion where in that letter to place this information.
V. Agency Response to Comments and Decisions Back to Top
NHTSA received comments from 12 parties on proposals affecting EWR and Foreign Defect Reporting. These commenters were Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (the Advocates), Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), American Honda Motor Co, Inc. (Honda), American Suzuki Motor Co, Inc (Suzuki), Association of Global Automakers, Inc. (Global), Center for Auto Safety (CAS), Ford Motor Company (Ford), Law Office of Hogan Lovells US LLP representing Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA), Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM), Quality Control Systems Corporation (QCSC), and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota). The specific comments of each entity will be discussed below for each topic to which they responded.
Under EWR, we endeavor to collect a body of information that may assist in the identification of potential safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. When we believe that the EWR information may be refined or enhanced to further advance our goal of identifying safety defects, we consider factors that are relevant to the particular area of EWR under consideration. In view of our broad statutory authority to require reporting of information that may assist in the identification of potential safety-related defects, we do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to identify a prescriptive list of factors for delineating particular data elements. Nonetheless, based on our experience, the following considerations, among other things, have been identified as relevant to evaluating whether or not adding data elements to light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle reporting would assist in identifying safety-related defects:
The importance of the data to motor vehicle safety.
The maturity of a particular technology and its market penetration.
Whether the current component categories are adequate to capture information related to proposed data elements.
Whether ODI has investigated or been notified of vehicle recalls related to the proposed data elements.
Whether VOQ complaints related to the data elements have been useful in opening investigations into potential safety-related defects and whether those investigations have resulted or may result in recalls.
Whether manufacturers collect information on the proposed data elements.
The burden on manufacturers.
We emphasize that the general approach of the EWR program is to collect data on numerous systems and components in a very wide range and volume of vehicles 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.
The following sections discuss the new EWR component codes that were proposed in the NPRM, the comments we received to each and our response.
The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers producing 5,000 or more vehicles annually to submit production information including the make, the model, the model year, the type, the platform and the number of vehicles produced. 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 death and injury data pursuant to 49 CFR 579.21(b) or with aggregate data under 49 CFR 579.21(c).
The NPRM proposed 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 also proposed to amend the light vehicle reporting templates for the EWR death and injury and aggregate reports to reflect adding vehicle type and provided exemplar light vehicle templates in Appendix A.
We believe this change will assist ODI to identify potential safety-related defects by making light vehicle EWR data received internally consistent. Because light vehicle manufacturers providing quarterly EWR reports are not obligated to provide the vehicle type in their death and injury and aggregate EWR reports, NHTSA is unable to distinguish whether the light vehicle death and injury and aggregate data are associated with certain vehicle types such as passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks or incomplete vehicles. Without being able to isolate this information by vehicle type, ODI cannot match aggregate data accurately with production data.
The Advocates, the Alliance, Ford, and Toyota commented specifically on the proposal to amend § 579.21(b) and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to include the type code in the death/injury and aggregate data. The Advocates supported the addition and concurred with the agency's position that this would impose minimal burden on manufacturers. Toyota indicated that they could determine the vehicle type from vehicle model; while Ford indicated that including the type code would increase the number of records in their submissions from 18 to 33 (but did not object to the addition). The Alliance did not object to the proposal and believes the related costs are relatively modest. However, the Alliance offered the opinion, and Ford concurred, that creating a vehicle type “UN” for “unknown” may lead to a conflict in Artemis because there will be no production volume for model line “unknown.” The agency notes that a vehicle type “UN” will be an exception case for Death/Injury records where the VIN is not available; likewise, these records would be excluded from the data consistency check. The same goes for aggregate records—“unknown” records will be excluded for data validation. This is similar to the current processing for Child Restraints in the case where the Production Year is 9999 (or unknown).
We believe the addition of the vehicle type code in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of § 579.21 will improve our ability to identify potential safety-related defects. No commenters objected to the inclusion of the type code in light vehicle reporting. Accordingly, NHTSA will adopt this proposal as written in the NPRM, with minor revisions to the wording of the regulatory text that do not change the meaning of the proposed text.
Currently, the EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers to report the required information by make, model and model year. 49 CFR 579.21(a), (b)(2), (c). The rule also requires light vehicle manufacturers to subdivide their EWR death and injury and aggregate reports by components. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c). Reporting by make, model and model year and component categories have remained unchanged since the EWR regulation was published in July 2002. Since that time, manufacturers have introduced new technologies to meet the demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. Currently, light vehicle manufacturers do not identify the specific fuel or propulsion system used in their vehicles. As use of these new technologies expands, we are concerned that the current EWR reporting scheme is not sufficiently sensitive to readily identify vehicles with different fuel and/or propulsion system types. For example, some models, such as the Toyota Camry, are offered with both conventional and hybrid propulsion systems.
The recently issued Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards will spur manufacturers to increasingly produce fuel efficient vehicles employing various technologies. Following the direction set by President Obama on May 21, 2010, NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have published final rules for Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas emissions regulations for model year (MY) 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. NHTSA believes that to meet the new CAFE standards, manufacturers will increase their production of light vehicles with alternate fuel and/or propulsion systems that could raise new safety issues not currently accounted for in the EWR regulatory scheme.
Therefore, as the automotive industry begins to introduce and produce more vehicles with new propulsion systems, NHTSA believes now is an opportune time to start collecting EWR information to assist in identifying potential defects in these new systems. As currently configured, the EWR reporting structure may mask potential problems with these systems. NHTSA is currently unable to discern from EWR data whether a particular vehicle problem is unique to a particular fuel or propulsion system. Currently, problems with a particular make and model that may be unique to one fuel and/or propulsion system could be readily distinguished from problems that may apply to that make and model regardless of the fuel and/or propulsion system. The final rule will permit NHTSA to investigate safety concerns in many makes and models with similar fuel and/or 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).
We believe that adding the appropriate fuel and/or propulsion system type to EWR will enhance NHTSA's ability to identify and address potential safety defects related to specific fuel and/or propulsion systems.
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to amend 49 CFR 579.21(a), (b), and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to provide the type of fuel and/or propulsion system when they submit their EWR data and to update accordingly the light vehicle reporting templates for the EWR production information, death and injury, and aggregate data to reflect adding fuel and/or propulsion type. Also, a new definition of “fuel and/or propulsion system type” was proposed for 49 CFR 579.4: “fuel and/or propulsion system type means the variety of fuel and/or propulsion systems used in a vehicle, as follows: compressed natural gas (CNG); compression ignition fuel (CIF); electric battery power (EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle (HEV); hydrogen based power (HBP); plug-in hybrid (PHV); and spark ignition fuel (SIF).” Manufacturers would identify the fuel and/or propulsion system on the EWR template in the appropriate field. In addition to amending § 579.4 to add “fuel and/or propulsion system type”, the NPRM proposed definitions for each of the following fuel or propulsion system types:
Compressed natural gas (CNG) means a system that uses compressed natural gas to propel a motor vehicle.
Compression ignition Fuel (CIF) means a system that uses diesel or any diesel-based fuels to propel a motor vehicle. This includes biodiesel.
Electric battery power (EBP) means a system that uses only batteries to power an electric motor to propel a motor vehicle.
Fuel-cell power (FCP) means a system that uses fuel cells to generate electricity to power an electric motor to propel the vehicle.
Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a system that uses a combination of an electric motor and internal combustion engine to propel a motor vehicle.
Hydrogen based power (HBP) means a system that uses hydrogen to propel a motor vehicle through means other than a fuel cell.
Plug-in hybrid (PHV) means a system that combines an electric motor and an internal combustion engine to propel a motor vehicle and is capable of recharging its batteries by plugging in to an external electric current.
Spark ignition fuel (SIF) means a system that uses gasoline, ethanol, or methanol based fuels to propel a motor vehicle.
We anticipated that the majority of vehicles produced by manufacturers would be captured by our proposed definitions. However, our proposal included the term “other” (OTH) to identify vehicle models employing a fuel and/or propulsion system that is not enumerated in our other proposed fuel and/or propulsion types. For example, the Dual fuel F-150 would be classified as “Other,” since it is propelled by either gasoline or CNG.
The proposed fuel and/or propulsion system types included most of the alternative fuels found in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 49 U.S.C. 32901, but not all. Due to differences in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and EWR programs, our proposed categories of fuel/propulsion systems differ slightly from the alternative fuels listed in section 32901. While EPCA encourages manufacturers to produce vehicles using alternative fuels, the EWR program has a different focus. In the context of alternative fuel vehicles, that focus is on potential problems that may occur within a fuel or propulsion system, which requires the agency to differentiate between propulsion technologies that are, or will be, available to consumers. For EWR purposes, there is no technical hardware difference between a vehicle with a spark ignition fuel engine capable of using a variety of fuels, such as ethanol or gasoline, or a mixture of fuels, such as E85 (ethanol/gasoline mixture) and a vehicle with a spark ignition fuel engine using gasoline only. While such a fuel distinction is appropriate for the CAFE program, EWR will not benefit from that level of detail because the specific fuel type being used will be unknown.
The Advocates, the Alliance, and Toyota commented on the addition of the fuel and/or propulsion type EWR codes. The Advocates supported the proposal, but asked that the agency address, in a separate rulemaking, linking the new EWR codes to the “affected parts” choices in the Vehicle Owners Questionnaire. The Advocates also indicated a desire to see a list of failure modes that can be chosen for each component. These comments are not within the scope of the current rulemaking and will not be addressed by this final rule. The Alliance and Toyota did not object to the addition of fuel and/or propulsion type codes, but sought clarification on how to report fuel and/or propulsion types that are unknown. The Alliance suggested a default of SIF, or whatever the base model version is for a model line not manufactured with a SIF system. Toyota stated that whatever approach is chosen for reporting an unknown must be simple enough to accomplish through, “automatic means by way of programmatic mapping.” The agency responds that if the attribute is “unknown” the entire record will be excluded from the data consistency check (validation). We expect that this will be a very infrequent occurrence. The EWR processing staff can always contact the manufacturer to seek clarification, if needed.
Based upon the foregoing and the lack of objection to our proposal from commenters, this final rule amends § 579.4 by adding the proposed definitions for “fuel and/or propulsion system type” in addition to § 579.21(a), (b)(2), and (c) as proposed. We have deleted the phrase “in the context of reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type” in the new definitions, however, as it is redundant to the introductory language in § 579.4(c) that states “The following terms apply to this part.” For clarity, we have changed the “hydrogen based power (HBP)” type to hydrogen combustion power (HCP). This change makes a clearer differentiation between this type and a fuel-cell power propulsion type. Also for clarity, we added the phrase “but is not capable of recharging its batteries by plugging in to an external electric current” to the definition of Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) to make a clearer differentiation between this type and the Plug-in hybrid type.
The EWR regulation requires light and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers to report the required information by specific component categories. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c), (d) and 579.22(b), (c), (d). The component categories for each vehicle type have remained unchanged since the EWR regulation was published in July 2002. Since that time, new technologies, such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Roll Stability Control (RSC), Forward Collision Avoidance (FCA), Lane Departure Prevention (LDP), and Backover Prevention, have been introduced into the marketplace. As these new technologies are implemented, and demand for these products increases in the market place, we are concerned that the EWR component categories are unsuitable for capturing these newer technologies. As a result, NHTSA proposed to add component codes for ESC, FCA, LDP and Backover Prevention to the EWR reporting for light vehicles and ESC/RSC for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium and heavy vehicles. Each of these new component codes and the comments regarding each are addressed below.
Several commenters did not comment on the new component codes individually, but as a group. These commenters were CAS, Ford, Global, and Honda. CAS did not offer comments on the proposed codes, but asked for an expansion of the current codes for air bags. This request is outside the scope of the current rulemaking. Ford believes that the proposed codes are not appropriate for EWR and would require manual review of tens of thousands of EWR reports per quarter. Ford supports alternatives proposed by the Alliance.
Global believes that reporting problems will be caused by the fact that several systems share components stating:
If an incident or claim implicates a shared component, the proposal states that the manufacturer should report data based upon the functionality of the component as reported in the underlying claim. Given the complex nature of these systems, it is not clear that assignment of the cause of an incident or claim to one of these systems will be possible. In addition, in order to deal with this type of situation, additional technical resources would be required to assess “functionality” and changes to manufacturer data systems will be required. These actions will require time and resources to complete. To accomplish the proposed narrowing of categories, manufacturers would be saddled with the substantial burden of performing individualized reviews of warranty claims in certain instances. For example, manual reviews of claims involving brake malfunction would be required to definitely determine whether a claim is related to the electronic stability control system. This type of activity would be unduly burdensome from both a time and resource perspective. This issue will be exacerbated if NHTSA continues to add new codes for emerging technology in the future.
Global also believes that NHTSA has underestimated the costs and burdens aspect of the proposal. Suzuki stated that it participated in the development of, and supports, the Global comments. Toyota stated that the new component categories raise “significant problems in implementation”, noting the same concerns as the Alliance.
Honda commented that it has, “no immediate concerns” regarding introduction of the proposed new codes and provided a one-time cost estimate totaling 1,350 person hours and $135,000 to implement new codes.
The above general comments will be addressed in the following sections. Detailed response to comments on cost can be found in Section VIII.F.1.b.
QCSC did not address our proposed categories, but proposed its own: unintended acceleration, floor mats, and dividing air bags and seat belts into more defined sub-groups. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be addressed in this notice.
In the NPRM, we proposed to add a new component code for light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles and medium/heavy vehicles in 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR 579.22(b)(2) for ESC.
As discussed in the NPRM, ESC is now required for all light vehicles and presents known benefits for heavy vehicles. As a result, the number of vehicles using ESC is increasing rapidly and potentially could include the great majority of the vehicle fleet.
In addition to ESC, RSC systems are increasingly installed on heavy trucks. RSC detects a high lateral acceleration condition that could lead to a truck rolling over, and intervenes by automatically, applying the vehicle's brakes and/or reducing engine power and applying the engine retarder. We proposed to combine ESC and RSC in one EWR component code for medium and heavy trucks and proposed the new Heavy Vehicle Aggregate Template (Appendix B).
The EWR regulation currently does not have a specific component for ESC or RSC issues. See 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 579.22(b)(2). Light vehicle manufacturers report ESC issues under “03 service brake system” and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers report stability control issues under “03 service brake, hydraulic” and “04 service brake, air” because those definitions include stability control. As a result, potential stability control issues may 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 stability control system. The agency believes that stability control issues are likely to increase as vehicle manufacturers add stability control to their fleets. In our view, it is important to capture EWR data on this key safety component, supplementing NHTSA's traditional screening methods to assist in identifying potential safety issues sooner. Adding an ESC component category to light vehicles and a combined ESC/RSC component category to buses, emergency vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles reporting categories will allow NHTSA to capture data on this mandatory system on light vehicles and new system on medium-heavy trucks and analyze stability control data for potential defects.
The Alliance commented on the new ESC component code. While the Alliance agrees that ESC is very important for safety and has high market penetration, it opposed a new component code. It stated, “The primary problem in attempting to create a component category exclusively of ESC is that it will often be very difficult for manufacturers to determine whether claims, consumer complaints, and other aggregate data that might relate to ESC actually do involve ESC.” The Alliancebelieves, “. . . it would be extremely difficult and costly—and would require a tremendous amount of additional time—for manufacturers to attempt to disaggregate items involving ESC from the “brake” category, particularly with respect to claims, consumer complaints, and warranty claims.” The Alliance pointed out that it believes that consumers often do not know, “whether the perceived problem is related to ESC, as opposed to other handling or brake issues,” and that warranty claims may be impossible to assign to ESC because, “ESC systems share components and software with other vehicle systems.” The Alliance noted that NHTSA issued a legal interpretation in 2003 that manufacturers' reporting must be based on the face of the claim or complaint and not on any manufacturers' analysis or investigation of the claim or complaint.
It also notes that the manufacturers have instituted long standing practices for processing claims and complaints based on this interpretation and, “it would be extremely difficult, costly, and burdensome to attempt to separate reports of ESC issues from reports involving associated systems that utilize the same components.” The Alliance then offered, as an alternative to the proposed ESC code, that the current “service brake system” category be divided into two new categories: “foundation braking systems” and “automatic brake controls”, and proposed definitions for these terms.
The agency acknowledges that in some instances consumers may not perceive stability control problems during a crash or will be unable to distinguish stability control problems from problems with other components. This may occur when a consumer communicates through a complaint or a property damage claim to the manufacturer. Although there may be some of these instances, the agency believes that misidentification of stability control complaints will be rare. The agency receives vehicle owner questionnaires (consumer complaints) reporting potential problems with ESC. Furthermore, consumer complaint data represent only 5 percent and property damage claims represent less than 1 percent of the EWR aggregate data for the service brake component.
The bulk of the EWR data for the service brake component consists of warranty claims and field reports. Manufacturers likely have the capability to identify and report specific problems associated with stability control in warranty claims and field reports. Manufacturers of light vehicles have elaborate warranty systems that capture information about discrete components and service codes. Manufacturers also track issues identified by their representatives in the field. The agency still believes that with the ability to identify specific issues through service codes and field inspections, manufacturers should be able to code stability control issues appropriately. However, the agency did not intend to change its long-standing interpretation regarding coding claims and complaints. For such items, the manufacturer should use the information reported to the manufacturer by the consumer as the basis for its EWR codes. In the proposal, we intended that manufactures would, where possible on the face of the claim or complaint, consistent with our interpretation, categorize complaints and claims using the proposed new ESC code. Where that is not possible, codes would be assigned as appropriate by the manufacturer.
Adding a new component to the light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle EWR reporting is likely to create a one-time cost for manufacturers to amend their reporting template and revise their software systems to appropriately categorize the stability control system data. We do not believe this cost will be substantial or pose an undue burden on manufacturers.
In the agency's view, as discussed above, ESC is an important, required, component for light vehicle control and a malfunction can have an impact on vehicle safety. Capturing data on this new technology will assist the agency in identifying potential problems sooner. Because the number of vehicles with ESC is increasing rapidly and all light vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2011 must have ESC, we believe that it is appropriate for the agency to start collecting EWR data on this specific component.
The final rule will adopt, as we proposed, the ESC definition found in 49 CFR 571.126.S4 for light vehicles. The final rule will define ESC for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles as a system that has all the following attributes:
Augments vehicle directional stability by applying and adjusting the vehicle brake torques individually at each wheel position on at least one front and at least one rear axle of the vehicles to induce correcting yaw moment to limit vehicle oversteer and to limit vehicle understeer;
Enhances rollover stability by applying and adjusting the vehicle brake torques individually at each wheel position on at least one front and at least one rear axle of the vehicle to reduce lateral acceleration of a vehicle;
Is computer-controlled with the computer using a closed-loop algorithm to induce correcting yaw moment and enhance rollover stability;
Has a means to determine the vehicle's lateral acceleration;
Has a means to determine the vehicle's yaw rate and to estimate its side slip or side slip derivative with respect to time;
Has a means to estimate vehicle mass or, if applicable, combination vehicle mass;
Has a means to monitor driver steering input;
Has a means to modify engine torque, as necessary, to assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle and/or combination vehicle; and
Can provide brake pressure to automatically apply on a truck tractor and modulate the brake torques of a towed semi-trailer.
As noted above, the agency does not intend for manufacturers to change long-standing practices and processes to implement the use of the new ESC code, but simply to use the code when, a warranty claim or field report indicates a concern with stability control and a claim or consumer compliant, on its face, indicates a concern with stability control systems. In cases where ESC is not obvious code(s) should be assigned as appears appropriate.
The agency believes dividing the current “service brake system” category into two new categories: “foundation braking systems” and “automatic brake controls”, has merit, in addition to the new ESC code. This issue is discussed further in subsection iii, below.
For heavy vehicles, the agency proposed that issues with either an ESC or RSC system be reported in a combined ESC/RSC category. RSC has similar attributes related to ESC. The NPRM proposed that RSC be defined as a system that has the following attributes:
Enhances rollover stability by applying and adjusting the vehicle brake torques to reduce lateral acceleration of a vehicle;
Is computer-controlled with the computer using a closed-loop algorithm to enhance rollover stability;
Has a means to determine the vehicle mass or, if applicable, combination vehicle mass;
Has a means to modify engine torque, as necessary, to assist the driver in maintaining rollover stability of the vehicle and/or combination vehicle; and
There were no comments on the combined ESC/RSC category for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium and heavy vehicles. The only comment regarding heavy vehicle ESC was made by MEMA, who requested that the agency use, for heavy vehicles, the definition of ESC it proposed to the agency's NPRM on heavy vehicles ESC (Docket NHTSA-2012-0065 item 0041, August 21, 2012). The agency does not believe the definition for ESC as it applies to heavy vehicles should be changed before the final rule is issued on that subject.
As proposed, this final rule amends 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add ESC to the list of components in that section and amends 49 CFR 579.22(b)(2) to the combined ESC/RSC component code to the list of components in that section. It also amends 49 CFR 579.4(b) to add the regulatory definition of light vehicle ESC found in 49 CFR 571.126.S4,
adds the definition of ESC and RSC for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles as proposed, and amends the definition of “service brake system” to remove stability control from that definition.
An FCA system monitors and detects the presence of objects in a vehicle's forward travel lane and alerts the driver by means of an audible and/or visual warning of a potential impact with the object. FCA systems seek to warn drivers of stopped, decelerating or slower moving vehicles in the vehicle's lane of travel in order to avoid collisions. Some FCA systems may also assist with driver's braking or automatically brake to avoid collisions. An LDP system warns a driver that the vehicle is exiting a travel lane and may automatically provide steering input to assist the driver to maintain lane position.
NHTSA is encouraging deployment of these important crash avoidance systems by notifying consumers which vehicles offer them through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Starting with model year 2011 vehicles, NHTSA recommends ESC, Forward Collision Warning and Lane Departure Warning systems that pass the NCAP performance tests on the Web site www.safercar.gov. The agency believes that adding these technologies in NCAP will increase consumer awareness of these beneficial technologies and spur market demand.
In the NPRM, the agency proposed two new categories, FCA and LDP, and definitions for each:
Forward collision avoidance system means a system that:
Has an algorithm or software to determine distance and relative speed of an object or another vehicle directly in the forward lane of travel; and
Provides an audible, visible, and/or haptic warning to the driver of a potential collision with an object in the vehicle's forward travel lane.
The system may also include a feature:
Pre-charges the brakes prior to, or immediately after, a warning is issued to the driver;
Closes all windows, retracts the seat belts, and/or moves forward any memory seats in order to protect the vehicle's occupants during or immediately after a warning is issued; or
Applies any type of braking assist or input during or immediately after a warning is issued.
Lane departure prevention system means a system that:
Has an algorithm or software to determine the vehicle's position relative to the lane markers and the vehicle's projected direction; and
Provides an audible, visible, and/or haptic warning to the driver of unintended departure from a travel lane.
The system may also include a feature that:
Applies the vehicle's stability control system to assist the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after the warning is issued;
Applies any type of steering input to assist the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after the warning is issued; or
Applies any type of braking pressure or input to assist the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after the warning is issued.
We chose to make the EWR categories broader than the warning systems indicated in NCAP to attempt to capture advanced systems are they are implemented.
The Alliance and MBUSA commented on these two new categories. As with ESC the Alliance commented that “it would be extremely difficult and costly for manufacturers to even attempt to separate reportable EWR items into these two categories.” The Alliance further stated, “While FCA and LDP have the potential to enhance motor vehicle safety, their contribution is not as significant as that of other components and systems currently specified in the regulation. As currently implemented, they are `driver assistance systems', not `safety systems.'” The Alliance believes that these two categories of systems are, “not `mature', and they have not significantly penetrated the market.” MBUSA commented that the definitions of FCA and LDP are too broad. It believes that “different components and subsystems will be captured by different OEMs depending on the technology used” by each individual manufacturer and therefore the agency will not be able to compare reported rates among manufacturers.
The agency believes that these emerging crash avoidance technologies have been in development for some time and are appearing in the current light vehicle fleet. As these new technologies are implemented and demand increases, we are concerned that the EWR component categories currently in use will not capture them. NHTSA believes it is appropriate to add these technologies to EWR now. As discussed above for ESC, NHTSA intends that the manufacturers use the FCA and LDP code where, on its face, it is indicated by the claim or complaint. Otherwise these claims and complaints should be treated and processed as they are currently. The agency intends that systems that warn the driver of a possible crash situation or lane departure be treated along with systems that take action to intervene to prevent a crash or lane departure. This will allow the category to serve EWR as these systems mature and become even more prevalent.
Accordingly, this final rule adopts the FCA and LDP EWR reporting categories and their definitions as proposed.
In its comments to the NPRM the Alliance offered an alternative to our new category ESC in which the current Service Brakes category for light vehicles could be segregated into Foundation Brakes and Automatic Brake Controls. The Alliance said, in part, “we understand the agency's desire to assure that the large number of reports of problems with respect to the foundation brakes do not inhibit its ability to identify problems with electronic/automatic brake components.” We have carefully considered this approach and, while we are implementing the ESC, FCA and LDP categories, we believe the Alliance's suggestion to divide the Service Brake category still has merit. As discussed in the section on ESC above, the agency believes that manufacturers are capable of assigning the new ESC category to almost 95 percent of the data required to be reported in EWR involving those systems. However, given that we do not want manufacturers to change the methods and processes by which they make the category assignments, dividing the Service Brake category as the Alliance suggested will assist the agency to also capture those reports. Therefore, in this final rule the current light vehicle Service Brakes category will be divided into discrete braking systems under the following two definitions:
Foundation 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 components such as the brake pedal, master cylinder, fluid lines and hoses, 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 the parking brake). 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.).
Automatic Brake Controls means systems and devices for automatic control of the brake system, including but not limited to, brake-assist components (vacuum booster, hydraulic modulator, etc.), antilock braking systems, traction control systems, enhanced braking systems. 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.).
Only the Automatic Brake Control definition differs from the Alliance's proposed definition. For clarity, we added “brake-assist components.”
In addition to adding component categories for ESC, FCA, and LDP, the NPRM proposed adding a component category for systems designed to mitigate backover crashes for light vehicles in 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2). We proposed to define a backover prevention system as one that has “a visual image of the area directly behind a vehicle that is provided in a single location to the vehicle operator and by means of indirect vision.” We proposed this new category because in 2010 the agency estimated that, on average, there are 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries (3,000 of which NHTSA estimates are incapacitating) resulting from backover incidents every year. Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000 injuries were attributed to backover incidents involving light vehicles under 10,000 pounds.
NHTSA also estimates that about 20 percent of MY 2010 light vehicles are equipped with some sort of image-based backover prevention system.
Only the Alliance commented specifically on the proposed backover prevention category. The Alliance opposes the adoption of such a category because it believes, “there is clearly no need for a separate category at the present time, before the agency has even adopted a final rule, and given the four-year lead time following promulgation of such a rule before it would be fully effective.” The Alliance noted the same problem would exist with the backover prevention category as it described for ESC, FCA and LCP, namely, that many elements of the system are shared with other systems. The Alliance further stated that it, “understands NHTSA's concern that various manufacturers code reports about problems with backover systems in various existing component categories,” and suggested, as an alternative to the proposed new category, to revise the definition of the “visibility” category “to require all such reports to be included in that category.” The Alliance also objected to the use of the term “backover prevention system”, since “the systems in use today and those that would be required under the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 111 are more properly characterized as `rearward visibility systems,' since few, if any, of those systems would actually operate independently to `prevent' a backover.”
The agency believes that, regardless of what form such a final rule might take, the number of vehicles utilizing some form of an image-based backover prevention system will increase over time. In fact, the agency is adding rearview camera systems as an allowed technology in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) while the final rule is being completed. These systems are likely to take on different trade names and incorporate additional functionality not present today. We would like the category to be able to accommodate current and future systems.
The agency believes, as with the other new categories, the manufacturers can capture those claims, notices, warranty claims, complaints, property damage claims or field reports that, on the face, are linked to a Backover Prevention category. The Alliance admits that manufacturers could identify these reports to place them in a revised Visibility category. The agency prefers to use the term “backover prevention”, which includes systems that warn the driver as well as those that take action to prevent a backover, so that the new category captures newer, active, systems as they emerge. The agency believes these measures will enhance its ability to identify and address potential safety defects related to this important safety system that is already in the market.
After reviewing the comments received, the agency has decided to adopt the Backover Prevention category as proposed in the NPRM. This final rule will amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add backover prevention systems to the list of components in this section and will amend the definition of “visibility” to remove any reference to exterior view image-based systems for light vehicles.
The NPRM proposed to amend the EWR light vehicle production, death and injury, and aggregate reporting templates used by light vehicle manufacturers for their quarterly EWR submissions to add the new vehicle type, fuel and/or propulsion system type, ESC, FCA, LDP, and Backover Prevention system components. The NPRM likewise proposed amending the EWR bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle reporting templates to accept the new ESC/RSC component code.
Only the Alliance commented on the proposal to amend the reporting templates and that comment was only in the context that they objected to the addition of the new component codes that the templates would serve to report.
Based upon the foregoing, we believe the addition of the new component codes that we are adopting today is necessary. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the changes to the light vehicle EWR reporting templates as proposed, with slight modifications to accommodate the new component codes for Foundation Brake System and Automatic Brake Controls. Similarly, this final rule adopts the proposed change to the Heavy Vehicle Aggregate Template to add the new ESC/RSC component code.
The foreign defect reporting regulations, 49 CFR part 579, subpart B, require manufacturers selling or offering motor vehicles for sale in the United States to submit annually a document that identifies each model of motor vehicle that the manufacturer sells or plans to sell during the following year in a foreign country that the manufacturer believes is identical, or substantially similar, to a motor vehicle sold or offered for sale in the United States (or to a motor vehicle that is planned for sale in the United States in the following year) and each such identical or substantially similar vehicle sold or offered for sale in the United States. 49 CFR 579.11(e). Currently, manufacturers may submit this list to NHTSA by mail, facsimile or by email. 49 CFR 579.6. When a manufacturer notifies NHTSA of a safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country, the agency searches the manufacturer's substantially similar list for vehicles in the U.S. that may contain a similar problem as identified in the foreign recall or campaign.
Unlike EWR reports, manufacturers are not required to upload their substantially similar vehicle list (SSVL) directly to ODI's Artemis database. However, most vehicle manufacturers in practice do upload their SSVLs directly to Artemis through the agency's secure Internet server. The NPRM proposed to require that manufacturers upload their SSVLs to Artemis because submissions by mail, facsimile, or email cannot be uploaded to Artemis and are not readily searchable. Having the lists in Artemis would make it easier for ODI to match vehicles involved in a recall in another country to vehicles sold, or offered for sale, in the United States.
The Alliance, Ford and Global submitted comments concerning the proposal to amend § 579.6(b) to require that the annual SSVL under § 579.11(e) be uploaded directly to the Artemis database. Ford and the Alliance indicated that the proposed 180-day lead time is insufficient. They stated that creating complex corporate software approval processes needed to protect intellectual property from unauthorized release would require a lead time of at least12 months. Global indicated that the reporting burden could be reduced by defining the Foreign Markets data field as geographic regions (Asia, Europe, etc.). Global also requested that the list not be made public until the end of the affected model year, as the list may contain models that are planned for introduction during the upcoming year. The agency notes that although the width of the current FOREIGN_MARKETS data field on the Excel SSVL template is not defined, this field will allow an entry of up to 2,048 characters (per record). This level of detail is provided in the XML Schema definitions available on the safercar.gov Web site (http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/XMLSchema/SubstantiallySimilarVehicles.xsd). Examples of commonly accepted entries are: (1) CANADA, EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA, OCEANA; (2) CANADA, EUROPE, ASIA; (3) EU, RUSSIA AND CIS, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, OCEANIA, AFRICA, ASIA. Therefore, we believe no new geographic region definitions are needed.
After review and consideration of the comments, this final rule provides a lead time of one year from the date of the publication of this rule. This will be reflected in the effective date to implement the new EWR component codes that is one year after the publication date of this final rule.
NHTSA received comments from twenty-two (22) parties for proposals affecting safety recalls reporting, administration, and execution. These commenters were Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota), The Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. (SRS), The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Inc. (RVIA), Quality Control Systems Corporation (QCSC), Harley Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson), Ford Motor Company (Ford), American Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki), R.L. Polk & Co. (Polk), The Law Office of Stephen Selander, PLLC (Selander), American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), The National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM), The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), The Center for Auto Safety (CAS), The Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (MIC), The Association of Global Automakers, Inc. (Global Automakers), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (the Advocates), Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG (MBUSA), and The Juvenile Products Manufacturer's Association (JPMA).
For summary purposes, the term “industry commenters” refers to vehicle and equipment manufacturers and the trade associations that represent them, such as the Alliance and Global Automakers. The term “safety advocate commenters” refers to organizations such as CAS and the Advocates that help promote automotive and highway safety. In this section, we provide a general summary of those comments.
We received comments on our proposal to require large, light vehicle (including motorcycle) manufacturers to submit VIN information on vehicles for which those manufacturers conduct safety recalls, and to submit daily updates on changes in recall remedy status as to each VIN, to NHTSA and in support of our development of an enhanced recalls search tool on our Web site, www.safercar.gov. Comments were also received on our alternative proposal to not require these manufacturers to submit this information or daily updates to NHTSA, but to require that they offer comparable utility on their Web site or on a third-party Web site. Industry commenters opposed our primary proposal and supported the alternative whereas some safety advocate commenters said our primary proposal was sufficient. Some commenters did not favor either proposal, but offered suggestions and commentary focused on the breadth of coverage and functionality of any recall search tool we would require.
After carefully considering the comments, we are proceeding with the agency's alternative proposal that requires large, light vehicle (including motorcycle) manufacturers to provide a recalls lookup tool, by VIN, on their own Web sites or third party Web sites. We have specified certain performance-based criteria for these sites to ensure consistent and reliable search results to address a wide range and age of light motor vehicles and motorcycles. A summary of the comments received on this proposal, as well as our reasoning for our various decisions and requirements, follows below.
We received a number of comments, both favorable and unfavorable, on the proposal to apply the provision to high volume, light vehicle manufacturers, and not others.
QCSC, the Advocates, and CAS objected to our application of MAP-21's requirements concerning public availability of safety recall information to only large, light vehicle manufacturers. They maintained that by its own terms, the statute requires the publication of recall information searchable by make, model, and VIN, on the Internet for all motor vehicles. They emphasized that the statute requires that the information made publicly available must include, “information about each recall that has not been completed for each vehicle.” The words “about each recall,” and “for each vehicle,” they maintain, are unlimited in scope and necessarily mean each manufacturer must provide this information for each recall and every vehicle subject to a recall that has not been completed. According to the Advocates, in making all unremedied recalled vehicles subject to the information disclosure, the statute is directly requiring the vehicle manufacturer to supply the information for its recalled vehicles to the agency. The Advocates disagreed with the agency's interpretation that the statute's silence about whom must supply information leaves the agency discretion to decide to whom it applies. With regard to the VINs associated with recalled vehicles that are unremedied, they argued that Congress has decided that vehicle manufacturers must provide that information to be placed on the Internet and be publicly accessible.
The Advocates further commented that neither part 573 nor part 577 indicate that some manufacturers must comply with recall requirements, while others do not, and that recall requirements are not dependent upon particular classes, types, or volumes of vehicles produced by manufacturers. They noted that the purpose of part 573, to facilitate notification of owners, applies to manufacturers of cars, trucks and motorcycles, incomplete and complete vehicles, as well as importers. Thus, according to the Advocates, the agency's regulations do not support a limitation on the types of manufacturers that must provide the safety recall information required under MAP-21.
CAS opined that smaller manufacturers may, in fact, be more prone to defects and recalls. In support, CAS referenced a report it submitted to NHTSA 35 years ago in which it identified 27 defects in various British Leyland cars that CAS says resulted in over a dozen recalls. The group also commented that our proposal is inconsistent with the agency's position that it needs to be able to better monitor new and emerging technologies that are likely to be used by smaller companies like Fisker and Tesla.
The Advocates challenged the parallel we drew to the Early Warning (EWR) regulation that limits certain requirements based on manufacturer annual production. They noted that Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 relates to consumer information on the repair status of recalled vehicles which is separate from the non-recall incident data captured through EWR. The Advocates believe that Congress intended all motor vehicles with outstanding recalls to be publicly searchable by VIN, not just the vehicles of the largest manufacturers as determined by annual production.
MEMA and EMA agreed with our proposal to exclude medium and heavy vehicles. Both concurred with our rationale that owners and operators of these vehicles interface directly with vehicle manufacturers through their field personnel, to remedy all types of service issues, including safety recalls. Accordingly, there was little likelihood that a recalls search tool would be of value to this community and have a positive impact on completion rates for recalls concerning medium heavy applications.
We have considered the comments and decline to expand the category of vehicle manufacturers required to provide VIN and Internet-based recalls search functions at this time. Section 30301(a) of MAP-21 does not specify which manufacturers are subject to making safety recall information available on the Internet. Moreover, section 30301(b) states that the Secretary “may” initiate a rulemaking.
The Advocates and CAS did not dispute our analysis in the NPRM that the light vehicle manufacturers that meet our production thresholds manufactured (or imported) comprise the vast majority of all vehicles recalled. We have since conducted a ten-year analysis including recalls through December 2012, the last full year that data are available, and that analysis produced results evidencing that this same class of manufacturers manufactured almost 95 percent of the vehicles recalled.
The Advocates and CAS comments did not address or consider the benefits that reasonably could be anticipated from requiring other manufacturers to post recall information on the Internet. They did not provide any information on de minimus manufacturers.
The notice of proposed rulemaking would have applied a VIN submission requirement to manufacturers of 25,000 or more light vehicles, or manufacturers of 5,000 or more motorcycles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into the United States annually. 77 FR 55621. Significantly, the notice of proposed rulemaking did not address manufacturers other than the light vehicle and motorcycle manufacturers it identified. 77 FR 55621. Other vehicle manufacturers apparently did not perceive themselves as potentially covered by the rule and did not comment. At this juncture, we do not have sufficient information to require other manufacturers to post recall information on the Internet. There would be questions, among others, about possible exemptions of de minimus manufacturers, updating frequency, and possible vendor services.
At this time, we are not making a decision on manufacturers other than those covered by the notice of proposed rulemaking. We are considering publishing another notice of proposed rulemaking and developing a record upon which to determine how to proceed with regard to the other vehicle manufacturers. We may consider, for example, how VIN look-up tools could benefit owners of other types of vehicles.
We reiterate that we are not prohibiting or preventing other manufacturers from providing an Internet based recalls search function. Any manufacturer may voluntarily provide this service, and some already do. Smaller manufacturers like Ferrari, Maserati, and Lotus now provide a VIN-based recalls lookup service through the Carfax Web site, yet they would not be required to do so by this rule. Although not required to do so, NHTSA encourages all manufacturers producing annually fewer than 25,000 vehicles (or fewer than 5,000 motorcycles) to create their own VIN-based recalls lookup service, and to provide for the electronic transfer of their recall information to NHTSA's www.safercar.gov Web site as specified in § 573.15(b)(12).
For the above reasons, the rule adopted today will apply to manufacturers of 25,000 or more light vehicles, or manufacturers of 5,000 or more motorcycles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into the United States annually as originally proposed. Rather than adjust the text of § 573.6(c)(3) as proposed in the NPRM, we will add a new § 573.15 to accommodate today's requirement, as well as the performance criteria for the manufacturer search tools that are discussed infra.
Industry commenters were decidedly against our primary proposal to require submission of VINs to NHTSA, and then to require daily updates to reflect a changed recall remedy status as to those VINs. These commenters said our proposal was costly, burdensome, subject to data integrity issues and service outages, and unnecessarily duplicative of the services many manufacturers already provide.
The Alliance commented that NHTSA's estimate of $51,200, for each large, light vehicle manufacturer to set up a VIN reporting system, was grossly underestimated. The Alliance calculated that it would cost each affected manufacturer $167,393.75 to setup the required computer systems. Based upon the Alliance's numbers, when multiplied by the number of light vehicle manufacturers affected by the proposal, the cost would total $4,854,418.75, more than three times NHTSA's one-time cost estimate of $1,484,800. The Alliance challenged our assessment that there would be no on-going costs to manufacturers to maintain their reporting systems, and said that based on information from their members, the average on-going cost per year would be $34,061.25 per manufacturer. Cumulatively, the on-going cost would be almost $1 million per annum. The Alliance further objected to our proposal because it did not consider the cost to tax-payers of establishing and maintaining this data system that would be required to accept hundreds of thousands of VINs, integrate substantial numbers of changes that the system receives each day, recover from inevitable service disruptions that will occur, and assure all the information is current and accurate.
By contrast, the same large, light vehicle manufacturers would each save an average of $71,773.75 under the alternative proposal, according to the Alliance. The Alliance multiplied this figure across the manufacturers that the NPRM identified would be affected by our proposal, for a combined savings in excess of $2 million. The Alliance also noted that each manufacturer could save approximately $30,000 in on-going costs per year, for a cumulative of almost $900,000 annually, if the alternative proposal was adopted.
MIC, MBUSA, Ford, and Honda also commented that the proposal was unjustifiably costly and inefficient. Honda estimated that the daily transfer of VINs between Honda and NHTSA would cost Honda a one-time approximate cost of $40,000, excluding labor costs. Polk commented on the complexity of learning the databases of all the vehicle manufacturers, and that Polk has a staff approaching 500 to operate its business of processing state title and registration data. Toyota said our proposal would require the submission of massive amounts of vehicle information that would be costly, unduly burdensome, impractical, and not advance safety goals.
Toyota said that it has operated a VIN-based recalls lookup tool for years and operation, data integrity, and security concerns are presented with the hosting of this type of service. Ford's comments aligned with Toyota's, and identified that extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, might interrupt the data connection between NHTSA and multiple manufacturers. Toyota commented that NHTSA would need to implement auditing safeguards to ensure NHTSA's database and Toyota's database are properly synchronized. Toyota explained that it utilizes one database that is accessed by multiple applications, and that this reduces the risk of syncing multiple databases, unlike the system NHTSA proposed.
Global Automakers commented that it would take NHTSA a considerable amount of time and funding to create, maintain, and operate a database of the size the agency proposed, and all of which would be a duplication of databases already in operation by many manufacturers and third party Web sites. The association further commented that smaller manufacturers often rely on recall completion data to be aggregated from multiple independent regional distributors, and that a requirement to update VIN repair status on a daily basis would be very burdensome and complicated for these manufacturers.
For its part, MEMA commented that although the impact and cost associated with our proposal do not directly impact its members as suppliers to vehicle manufacturers, those costs and burdens do have an indirect impact. It concurred with the vehicle manufacturers and their associations that the costs and burdens of our proposal were unnecessarily high, understated, and inconsistent with the concern in the GAO report that developing a centralized VIN database would require significant additional resources to fully implement. The group also made note that this report said “most of the public are not aware of the existence of the SaferCar.gov Web site.” Therefore, MEMA concluded, under a common sense, consumer point-of-view, the odds were that an individual would first visit the manufacturer's Web site before visiting www.safercar.gov for recalls information.
The industry commenters favored the alternative proposal to have light vehicle manufacturers host a VIN look-up on their or a third party's Web site and identified a number of benefits that the alternative proposal offered over the primary proposal.
The Alliance and Global Automakers echoed MEMA's comments saying that consumers are more familiar with the Web sites of their vehicle manufacturer, as opposed to NTHSA's Web site. Polk commented that between its Carfax Web site and the Web sites of the vehicle manufacturers, tens of millions of consumers are served each year.
The Alliance commented that manufacturer-hosted recall tools would provide more wide-ranging benefits by offering emissions recalls information, customer satisfaction campaigns, service campaign information, dealer locations, and vehicle service history. The Alliance noted that the availability of this other information could increase recall completion rates since dealers will remedy outstanding safety recalls when a consumer visits their dealer for some other service since the manufacturers' systems of records as to uncompleted recalls are shared with their respective dealerships.
Global Automakers, Ford, and Harley-Davidson both offered similar comments. Global Automakers noted that service campaigns and emissions recalls could also be offered through manufacturer Web sites. Global Automakers also added that typical consumers who need VIN-based recall results likely also need a complete “snapshot” of their vehicle history. Harley-Davidson added that remedy process information, dealer location and scheduling details could also be offered. Ford noted that it currently offers open safety recalls information well beyond the 24 month timeframe contemplated in our primary proposal, open safety recalls older than 24 months, emissions recalls, and customer satisfaction programs searchable by VIN on its Internet site.
Toyota commented that they could offer more than 24 months of recall information if allowed to provide this service through their own and currently operational Web site. MBUSA also noted that its Web site has recall information going back to 1976, significantly more than the 24 months of recall history that NHTSA proposed. The Alliance also suggested that instead of requiring just 2 years of historical VIN data, NHTSA instead request at least 2 years of data.
MBUSA, in favor of the alternative proposal, commented that manufacturer Web sites are inherently more accurate as vehicle manufacturers are the original source of both VIN information and recall completion status.
However, not all commenters were in favor of manufacturer-operated VIN look-up tools. The Advocates commented that any alternative method to satisfy Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 cannot be achieved with independent tools developed by the manufacturers as they could not “include information about each recall that has not been completed for each vehicle.” The Advocates noted that NHTSA could require manufacturers to satisfy this MAP-21 requirement, but only in addition to the NHTSA operated tool. The Advocates further commented that allowing manufacturers to operate their own VIN look-up tools would, in addition to being redundant to NHTSA's tool under the original proposal, also require NHTSA to constantly monitor their Web sites for adequacy and content.
We have considered the comments from industry and other groups. We have decided that the consumer awareness and recalls completion benefits we expected to achieve from our proposal can reasonably be expected to be achieved through the alternative proposal on which we requested comment. Further, the industry comments indicate that the alternative proposal is less costly and burdensome to the covered manufacturers since many of the manufacturers already have their own recalls look-up services online. It is also more cost effective and less burdensome to the tax-payers to adopt the alternative proposal, since the agency would not need to utilize its resources to support a VIN look-up feature that relies upon the manufacturer's datasets. The alternative proposal also reduces the risk of data inaccuracy and inconsistency that accompanies self-contained data systems. Accordingly, after consideration of the comments, we believe it more prudent to finalize the alternative proposal rather than our primary proposal.
We considered the industry commenters' criticisms that our estimations on costs were unreasonably low and short-sighted. While some comments did not provide support for their statement on costs or a break-down of stated criticism, we understand that requiring manufacturers to rearrange their data systems to report to NHTSA in the manner specified in our primary proposal, and then to provide an updated report daily, involves cost and burdens, and that the cost and burden are greater than what they are presently to provide owners with a recalls look-up service (or would be, in the case of manufacturers that do not presently have a recalls look-up service online).
We considered comments from the Alliance, Global Automakers, Polk, Harley-Davidson, Ford, Toyota, and other industry commenters, regarding the Web site features manufacturers can or do presently offer consumers. We agree that the information on activities beyond safety recalls that manufacturers can offer, and many already do, support the alternative proposal. We agree that information available to owners on these other activities could support NHTSA's goal of enhancing safety recalls completion rates. It is conceivable that an owner would respond to a non-safety recall notification or information, bring their vehicle to a dealership to have the work performed, and then any outstanding safety recall work could be performed at that time pursuant to typical manufacturer practices and policies of requiring dealers to check for outstanding safety recalls whenever a vehicle visits a dealership.
We agree that it is sensible for an owner or consumer to visit the manufacturer's Web site to learn more about a non-safety recall campaign or advisory on a vehicle, and then while searching be informed about an outstanding safety recall and take action to have their vehicle remedied. We considered the comments from MEMA, the Alliance, Global Automakers, and Polk regarding consumer's familiarity with manufacturer Web sites. We are persuaded by the commenters that the Web sites of large, light vehicle manufacturers are likely the first place an owner would look for VIN-specific information. For example, Toyota noted that their VIN search tool received 36,600 visits over a 7-month period, and over 70,000 visits in October 2012 alone. We also understand the risk that if an owner who does not find safety recall information on the manufacturer's site may not look further believing that only the manufacturer would have this information. This could be a consequence if we only required a manufacturer to provide VIN-specific information to us and did not require manufacturers to develop and maintain their own VIN-lookups.
We also considered the Advocates' technical argument that NHTSA can only require manufacturers to operate their own VIN look-up tools in conjunction with a NHTSA-operated tool. The Advocates claims Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 requires “the Secretary of Transportation develop an internet based tool for dissemination of vehicle recall remedy information.” We disagree with the Advocates MAP-21 interpretation as Section 31301(a) clearly states, “the Secretary shall require that motor vehicle safety recall information—(1) be available to the public on the Internet.” MAP-21 does not expressly require that NHTSA create a VIN based recalls look-up tool, only that it must ensure this information is made publicly available.
Therefore, we have decided to adopt the agency's alternative proposal to require light vehicle manufacturers that produce over 25,000 vehicles annually to make recall information available through a VIN look-up tool on their Web sites available to owners and consumers. The manufacturer's Web sites and VIN look-up tools must meet certain performance criteria, as discussed below. We are today amending 49 CFR part 573 to add a new § 573.15 that addresses and implements the requirements related to manufacturer online look-up tools reporting uncompleted safety recalls searchable by VIN.
In the NPRM, we proposed to require daily updates on changes in recall remedy status for 10 years from the date a manufacturer first provided us the VIN list for a particular recall. We explained that we proposed this time frame because it is consistent with the statutory limitation on how long a manufacturer can be required to provide an owner a free remedy. That is, manufacturers are only obligated to provide a free remedy for vehicles that were bought by the first purchaser less than 10 calendar years from when the manufacturer notified its owners of the safety defect or noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(g). In addition, we explained that in our experience very few vehicles can be expected to be presented for