[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47740-47758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22365]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0169; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AK28


Early Warning Reporting Regulations

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends certain provisions of the early warning 
reporting (EWR) rule published pursuant to the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act and adds 
requirements for information identifying products involved in a recall 
under 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and 
Reports. This rule modifies the threshold for submitting quarterly EWR 
reports for light vehicle, bus, medium-heavy vehicle (excluding 
emergency vehicles), motorcycle and trailer manufacturers. It further 
requires manufacturers submitting EWR reports to submit product names 
that are consistent from reporting quarter to quarter and amends the 
definition of ``other safety campaign.'' It also amends part 573 Defect 
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to add requirements that 
tire manufacturers provide a range of tire identification numbers of 
recalled tires and manufacturers provide the country of origin of a 
component involved in a recall.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this final rule is October 
19, 2009.
    Compliance Date: Compliance by bus manufacturers producing 100 or 
more but fewer than 500 buses annually is not required until September 
13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket

[[Page 47741]]

number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., West Building, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20590. The petition 
will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of 
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Tina 
Morgan, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA (phone: 202-366-0699). 
For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, 
NHTSA (phone: 202-366-5263). You may send mail to these officials at 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Background
    A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule
    B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports
    C. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    D. Overview of Public Comments to the Proposed Rule
    E. Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule
IV. Discussion
    A. Statutory Background on Early Warning and Notification 
Requirements
    B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning 
Reporting
    C. Light Vehicles
    D. Trailers
    E. Buses
    F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    G. Motorcycles
    H. Response to the National Truck Equipment Association Petition 
for Rulemaking
    I. Data Consistency
    J. Correction to the Definition of Other Safety Campaign
    K. Lead Time
    L. Amendments to Information Required to be Submitted in a Part 
573 Defect or Noncompliance Information Reports
    1. Amendment to Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii)
    2. Amendment to Section 49 CFR 573.9
    3. Amendment to Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv)
V. Privacy Act Statement
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Introduction

    In 2000, Congress enacted the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Public Law 106-414. Up 
until the TREAD Act's enactment, NHTSA relied primarily on analyses of 
complaints from consumers and technical service bulletins (TSBs) from 
manufacturers to identify safety defects in motor vehicles and 
equipment. Congress concluded that NHTSA did not have access to data 
that may provide an earlier warning of safety defects. Accordingly, the 
TREAD Act included requirements that NHTSA prescribe rules requiring 
motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to submit to NHTSA 
communications relating to defective equipment, information about 
foreign safety recalls and establishing early warning reporting 
requirements.
    Responding to the TREAD Act requirements in 2002, NHTSA issued 
rules requiring that motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers provide 
communications regarding defective equipment, information on foreign 
safety recalls and certain early warning data. 49 CFR part 579; see 67 
FR 45822; 67 FR 63295. The rules require:
     Monthly reporting of manufacturer communications (e.g., 
notices to distributors or vehicle owners, customer satisfaction 
campaign letters, etc.) concerning defective equipment or repair or 
replacement of equipment;
     Reporting (within five days of a determination to take 
such an action) of information concerning foreign safety recalls and 
other safety campaigns in foreign countries; and
     Quarterly reporting of early warning information: 
production information; information on incidents involving death or 
injury; aggregate data on property damage claims, consumer complaints, 
warranty claims, and field reports; and copies of field reports (other 
than dealer reports) involving specified vehicle components, a fire, or 
a rollover.
    We use the term ``Early Warning Reporting'' (EWR) here to apply to 
the requirements in the third category above, which are found at 49 CFR 
part 579, subpart C. As described more fully in the Background section, 
below, the requirements vary somewhat depending on the nature of the 
reporting entity (motor vehicle manufacturers, child restraint system 
manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and other equipment manufacturers) 
and the annual production of the entity. All of the EWR information 
NHTSA receives is stored in a database called ARTEMIS (which stands for 
Advanced Retrieval, Tire, Equipment, and Motor Vehicle Information 
System), which also contains additional information (e.g., recall 
details and complaints filed directly by consumers) related to defects 
and investigations.
    The Early Warning Division of the Office of Defects Investigation 
(ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of manufacturer early warning 
data and documents. Using its traditional sources of information, such 
as complaints from vehicle owner questionnaires (VOQs) and 
manufacturers' own communications, and the additional information 
provided by EWR submissions, ODI investigates potential safety defects. 
These investigations often result in recalls. In 2008, for example, 
manufacturers recalled more than 8 million vehicles for defective 
conditions. The majority of the vehicles recalled were from recalls 
prompted by ODI investigations.
    The TREAD Act requires that NHTSA periodically review its EWR 
rules. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(5). In previous EWR rulemakings, the agency 
indicated that we would begin a review of the EWR rule after two full 
years of reporting experience. See 67 FR 45822 (July 10, 2002) and 69 
FR 3292 (January 23, 2004). When two full years of reporting concluded 
in 2006, NHTSA began its review of the EWR rule.
    NHTSA evaluated the EWR rule in two phases. NHTSA completed phase 
one in 2007 and, after notice and comment, published a final rule on 
May 29, 2007. 72 FR 29435. The May 2007 final rule made three changes 
to the EWR rule. First, the agency eliminated the requirement to 
produce hard copies of a subset of field reports known as ``product 
evaluation reports.'' See 72 FR 29435, 29443. Second, the rule amended 
the definition of ``fire'' to more accurately capture fire related 
events. Id. Last, the agency limited the time that manufacturers must 
update missing vehicle identification number (VIN)/tire identification 
number (TIN) or a component in death or injury incidents to a period of 
no more than one year after NHTSA receives the initial report. 72 FR 
29444.
    On December 5, 2008, the agency issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking containing the second part of our evaluation of the EWR 
rule. This final rule amends the EWR rule based upon that evaluation.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    The early warning reporting rule requires that certain 
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment submit 
information to NHTSA that could assist in the identification of safety-
related defects. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. The amount and frequency 
of reporting required of a

[[Page 47742]]

manufacturer is dependent upon its annual production volume.
    Manufacturers of light vehicles, motorcycles, or trailers producing 
500 or more units per year must submit quarterly reports. Manufacturers 
of light vehicles, motorcycles or trailers producing fewer than 500 
units annually do not submit quarterly reports. Instead these smaller 
manufacturers are required to report to NHTSA when they receive a claim 
or notice identifying an incident that involves a death. 49 CFR 579.27.
    Today's final rule raises the EWR quarterly reporting threshold for 
light vehicle manufacturers, motorcycle manufacturers and trailer 
manufacturers from 500 or more units to 5,000 or more units per year. 
Light vehicle, motorcycle and trailer manufacturers producing fewer 
than 5,000 units per year will now have to submit only information 
related to incidents involving fatalities.
    Prior to today's rule, the EWR regulation required that medium-
heavy vehicle and bus manufacturers producing 500 or more units per 
year submit EWR reports. Manufacturers whose production volume is below 
this threshold are required to submit information only on incidents 
involving a fatality. With two exceptions, today's final rule raises 
the EWR quarterly reporting threshold to an annual production of 5,000 
or more vehicles. However, manufacturers of emergency vehicles 
producing 500 or more units per year must still file quarterly reports. 
For buses, the threshold is reduced to 100 or more buses produced 
annually.
    Today's final rule also adds a new requirement requiring vehicle 
and equipment manufacturers to provide consistent naming conventions 
for their products from quarter to quarter.
    Last, today's final rule amends two subsections of 49 CFR 573.6 to 
add language stating that tire manufacturers' recall reports include 
the tire identification number (TIN) of all tires within the scope of a 
recall and that all Part 573 Defect or Noncompliance Information 
Reports identify a recalled component's country of origin. 
Specifically, we are amending 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require a 
range of TINs and 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to identify the recalled component's 
country of origin.

III. Background

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule

    On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published a rule implementing the early 
warning reporting provisions of the TREAD Act. 67 FR 45822. This EWR 
regulation divides manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment into two groups with different reporting responsibilities. 
The first group consists of (a) larger vehicle manufacturers 
(manufacturers of 500 or more vehicles annually) producing light 
vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles and buses, trailers and/or motorcycles; 
(b) tire manufacturers producing over a certain number per tire line; 
and (c) all manufacturers of child restraints. The first group must 
submit comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. 49 CFR 579.21-26. 
The second group consists of smaller vehicle manufacturers (e.g., 
manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles annually) and all motor 
vehicle equipment manufacturers other than those in the first group. 
The second group has limited reporting responsibility. 49 CFR 579.27.
    Manufacturers in the first group must submit comprehensive 
quarterly reports for each make and model for the calendar year of the 
report and nine previous model years. Tire and child restraint 
manufacturers must transmit comprehensive reports for the calendar year 
of the report and four previous production years. Each report is 
subdivided so that the information on each make and model is provided 
by specified vehicle systems and components. The vehicle systems or 
components involved vary depending upon the type of vehicle or 
equipment manufactured.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For instance, light vehicle manufacturers must provide 
reports on twenty vehicle components or systems: steering, 
suspension, service brake, parking brake, engine and engine cooling 
system, fuel system, power train, electrical system, exterior 
lighting, visibility, air bags, seat belts, structure, latch, 
vehicle speed control, tires, wheels, seats, fire and rollover.
    In addition to the systems and components reported by light 
vehicle manufacturers, medium-heavy vehicle and bus manufactures 
must report on the following systems or components: service brake 
system air, fuel system diesel, fuel system other and trailer hitch.
    Motorcycle manufacturers report on thirteen systems or 
components: steering, suspension, service brake system, engine and 
engine cooling system, fuel system, power train, electrical, 
exterior lighting, structure, vehicle speed control, tires, wheels 
and fire.
    Trailer manufacturers report on twelve systems or components: 
suspension, service brake system-hydraulic, service brake system-
air, parking brake, electrical system, exterior lighting, structure, 
latch, tires, wheels, trailer hitch and fire.
    Child restraint and tire manufacturers report on fewer systems 
or components for the calendar year of the report and four previous 
model years. Child restraint manufacturers must report on four 
systems or components: buckle and restraint harness, seat shell, 
handle and base. Tire manufacturers must report on four systems or 
components: tread, sidewall, bead and other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general (not all of these requirements apply to manufacturers of 
child restraints or tires), manufacturers that submit comprehensive 
reports must report information on:
     Production (the cumulative total of vehicles or items of 
equipment manufactured in the year).
     Incidents involving death or injury based on claims and 
notices received by the manufacturer.
     Claims relating to property damage received by the 
manufacturer.
     Warranty claims paid by the manufacturer pursuant to a 
warranty program (in the tire industry these are warranty adjustment 
claims).
     Consumer complaints (a communication by a consumer to the 
manufacturer that expresses dissatisfaction with the manufacturer's 
product or performance of its product or an alleged defect).
     Field reports (a report prepared by an employee or 
representative of the manufacturer concerning the failure, malfunction, 
lack of durability or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or 
item of motor vehicle equipment).
    The reporting information on property damage claims, warranty 
claims, consumer complaints and field reports is in the form of 
numerical tallies, by specified system and component. These data are 
referred to as aggregate data. Reports on deaths or injuries contain 
specified data elements. In addition, manufacturers that submit 
comprehensive reports, other than tire manufacturers, are required to 
submit copies of non-dealer field reports.
    In contrast to the comprehensive quarterly reports required of the 
first group, the second group does not have to provide quarterly 
reports. These manufacturers must only submit death incident 
information when they receive a claim or notice of a fatality.

B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, a manufacturer is required 
to notify the Secretary if the manufacturer determines that a motor 
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to 
motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor 
vehicle safety standard. 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports details the information required to be 
reported to NHTSA when a manufacturer determines that a defect or 
noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard exists in a 
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.
    Section 573.6 specifies the information that manufacturers are 
required to submit to the agency. An important element of the notice to 
NHTSA is the identification of the component containing the defect or

[[Page 47743]]

noncompliance. Section 573.6(c)(2)(iii) requires manufacturers to 
identify items of motor vehicle equipment by the component's generic 
name (tires, child seating system, axles, etc.), part number, size and 
function if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of 
manufacturer if available and any other necessary information 
describing the items. Section 573.6(c)(2)(iv) requires manufacturers to 
identify the manufacturer of the component that contains the defect or 
noncompliance if the component was manufactured by a manufacturer 
different from the reporting manufacturer. In such a case, the 
reporting manufacturer must identify the component and the component's 
manufacturer by name, business address, and business telephone number.

C. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The December 5, 2008 NPRM proposed to raise the EWR quarterly 
reporting threshold for light vehicle manufacturers and trailer 
manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 or more vehicles per year. Those light 
vehicle and trailer manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 units per 
year would submit information on incidents involving a death under 
section 579.27. We also proposed to eliminate the reporting threshold 
for bus manufacturers, which would require all bus manufacturers to 
provide comprehensive quarterly EWR reports. The proposal left the 
quarterly reporting threshold for medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 
and motorcycles unchanged at 500 or more vehicles per year.
    The NPRM also responded to the National Truck Equipment 
Association's (NTEA) petition for rulemaking. NTEA petitioned the 
agency to undertake a rulemaking to raise the threshold for all vehicle 
manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 units per year or, alternatively, 
sought to exempt final stage manufacturers from quarterly EWR 
reporting. The agency did not propose amendments as requested by NTEA, 
but requested comments on our decision to keep the threshold for 
quarterly EWR reports for medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers unchanged.
    The agency proposed to add new provisions requiring vehicle and 
equipment manufacturers to use consistent quarter to quarter product 
naming conventions or provide NHTSA with timely notice of any changes, 
and to require light vehicle manufacturers to include the vehicle type 
in the aggregate portion of their quarterly EWR reports.
    Additionally, we proposed to add electronic stability control as a 
component to the light vehicle reporting category and require that 
manufacturers specify fuel and/or propulsion systems when providing 
model designations to capture new technologies in the light vehicle 
market.
    Finally, we proposed to amend two subsections of section 573.6. 
Specifically, we proposed to amend 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require tire 
manufacturers to report tire identification numbers (TINs) of recalled 
tires and 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to require manufacturers to identify the 
country of origin of a recalled component that is the subject of a 
recall. We also proposed to add language to section 573.9 to facilitate 
the submission of reports affected by the proposal to require TINs.

D. Overview of Public Comments to the Proposed Rule

    We received comments from several sources in response to the NPRM. 
Motor vehicle manufacturers and associated trade organizations 
commenting included the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(Alliance), Association of International Automobile Manufacturers 
(AIAM), Ford Motor Company (Ford), Truck Trailer Manufacturers 
Association (TTMA), Jayco, Inc. (Jayco), Big-Tex Trailer Manufacturing 
(Big-Tex), PJ Trailer Manufacturing (PJ Trailer), Motor & Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (MEMA), National Truck Equipment Associated 
(NTEA), Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), Recreation Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA), National Association of Trailer 
Manufacturers (NATM), National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), 
and Carry-On Trailer Corporation (Carry-On). In general, the industry 
commenters supported the proposals to raise the reporting threshold for 
light vehicle manufacturers and trailer manufacturers. Some commenters 
requested a subset of their vehicle population, based upon either 
geography or size of their subsidiaries, be exempted from the light 
vehicle reporting category.
    Some individual trailer manufacturers objected to raising the 
threshold from 500 units to 5,000 units annually. These manufacturers 
stated that by raising the threshold to 5,000 units per year would 
prevent the agency from receiving information from manufacturers of the 
heaviest, and, in their view, more dangerous trailers.
    NTEA opposed the agency's decision to not raise the threshold for 
medium-heavy vehicles and buses. It stated that the burden on its 
members that are small multi-stage or final-stage vehicle manufacturers 
to collect and report EWR information outweighs any safety benefits.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) submitted comments 
supporting the NPRM, but requested NHTSA reconsider raising the 
reporting threshold for buses, medium-heavy vehicles and motorcycles to 
5,000 units per year to determine whether the burden reduction would be 
appropriate for these categories as well.
    Most commenters acknowledged the problems associated with 
inconsistent model names, but opposed the addition of a category to the 
EWR reporting template indicating if a model was a new (``n'') model or 
current model, (``h'' for historical). These commenters suggested 
keeping a requirement for consistent model naming, but not adding the 
``n'' or an ``h'' in the EWR reporting template.
    Light vehicle industry commenters objected to the proposals to add 
new codes for electronic stability control (ESC) and fuel or propulsion 
systems because the changes to their data collection system and 
reporting templates would be costly and overly burdensome. These 
commenters requested that the agency hold a public meeting to review 
these proposed changes to the EWR reporting templates followed by an 
additional comment period.
    Commenters addressing the proposed amendments to part 573 did not 
object to requiring tire manufacturers to submit TINs for recalled 
tires. On the proposal to add a country of origin reporting 
requirement, MEMA and the Alliance requested that the proposed country 
of origin requirement be changed such that the information would be 
provided at a time later than the initial report if that information 
was not available at the time. TTMA objected to the proposal and said 
reporting country of origin information, among other things, would be 
overly burdensome since motor vehicles are comprised of hundreds of 
parts from many vendors that may reside in the U.S., but whose 
manufacturing facilities may be overseas.
    We also received comments from Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. 
(SRS) and Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc. (VSCI). While SRS did not 
oppose the proposed amendments in the NPRM related to Part 573, it 
commented that NHTSA should amend its process for tire recalls. VSCI 
recommended that the agency increase the threshold for EWR quarterly 
reports for motorcycles to 2,500 units, as a compromise between the 
burden on smaller motorcycle manufacturers and the potential safety 
benefit from motorcycle EWR data.

[[Page 47744]]

E. Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule

    Today's final rule differs from the proposed rule in several 
respects. First, after review of the comments and further 
consideration, we have decided to raise or amend the thresholds for 
medium-heavy vehicles and buses and motorcycles. The NPRM proposed to 
keep the quarterly reporting threshold for medium-heavy vehicles and 
motorcycles at 500 or more vehicles per year and eliminate the 
threshold for buses. As explained below, the final rule raises the 
threshold for quarterly EWR reports on most classes of medium-heavy 
vehicles from 500 or more vehicles to 5,000 or more vehicles annually, 
with two exceptions. These exceptions are for emergency vehicles and 
buses. For emergency vehicles, the threshold remains unchanged at 500 
or more vehicles per year. For buses, the final rule sets a threshold 
of 100 or more buses per year. In addition, the final rule raises the 
quarterly reporting threshold for motorcycles from 500 or more units to 
5,000 or more units per year.
    NHTSA has decided not to adopt at this time the proposals to change 
the light vehicle reporting template. Those proposals sought to require 
light vehicle manufacturers to include the vehicle type in the 
aggregate portion of their quarterly EWR reports, report on use of 
electronic stability control in light vehicles and specify fuel and/or 
propulsion systems when providing model designations. Instead of 
proceeding to issue a final rule at this time, we have decided to issue 
a separate NPRM on these issues in the near future. Among other things, 
our December 2008 NPRM did not include a proposed template or 
definitions for the types of fuel and/or propulsion systems. We believe 
that an additional round of comments on the proposed template and fuel 
and/or propulsion system definitions will permit more meaningful 
comments and consideration of the proposed template and definitions.

IV. Discussion

A. Statutory Background of Early Warning and Notification Requirements

    Under the early warning reporting provisions of the TREAD Act, 
NHTSA is required to issue a rule establishing reporting requirements 
for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to 
enhance the agency's ability to carry out the provisions of Chapter 301 
of Title 49, United States Code, which is commonly referred to as the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and 
recodified (Safety Act). 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(1), (2). Under one 
subsection of the early warning provisions, NHTSA is to require reports 
of information in the manufacturers' possession to the extent that such 
information may assist in the identification of safety-related defects 
and which concern, inter alia, data on claims for deaths and aggregate 
statistical data on property damage. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A)(i); see 
also 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(C). Another subsection authorizes the agency 
to require manufacturers to report information that may assist in the 
identification of safety defects. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(B). 
Specifically, the Secretary may, to the extent that such information 
may assist in the identification of safety-related defects in motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in the United States, require 
manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to report, 
periodically or upon request of the Secretary, such information as the 
Secretary may request. This subsection conveys substantial authority 
and discretion to the agency. Most EWR data, with the exception of 
information on deaths and property damage claims, is reported under 
regulations authorized by this provision.
    The agency's discretion is not unfettered. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30166(m)(4)(D), the Secretary shall not impose requirements unduly 
burdensome to a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment, taking into account the manufacturer's cost of complying 
with such requirements and the Secretary's ability to use the 
information sought in a meaningful manner to assist in the 
identification of defects related to motor vehicle safety.
    The Safety Act also requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or 
items of motor vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA and owners and 
purchasers of the vehicle or equipment if the manufacturer determines 
that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a 
defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an 
applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) & (c). 
Manufacturers must provide notification pursuant to the procedures set 
forth in section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section 30119 sets forth the 
contents of the notification, which includes a clear description of the 
defect or noncompliance, the timing of the notification, means of 
providing notification and when a second notification is required. 49 
U.S.C. 30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 confers considerable 
authority and discretion to NHTSA, by rulemaking, to require additional 
information in manufacturers' notifications. See 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7).

B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting

    As part of our evaluation of the reporting thresholds for 
comprehensive reporting under the EWR rule and in this rulemaking, the 
agency is endeavoring to ensure that it collects a body of information 
that may assist in the identification of defects related to motor 
vehicle safety in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We are 
also considering the burden on manufacturers. In view of our authority, 
stated in the statute in broad terms, to require reporting of 
information to the extent that such information may assist in the 
identification of defects related to motor vehicle safety, we do not 
believe that it is necessary or appropriate to identify a prescriptive 
list of factors for delineating a reporting threshold. Nonetheless, 
based on our experience, the following considerations, among other 
things, have been identified as relevant to evaluating whether EWR 
information assists or would assist in the identification of safety-
related defects:
     The number of manufacturers of a particular class of 
vehicles or equipment.
     The proportion of reporting manufacturers in a particular 
class of vehicles or equipment.
     The number of vehicles or equipment items at issue.
     Whether the vehicles carry large numbers of people.
     The safety risks attendant to a particular class of motor 
vehicles.
     The nature/amount of EWR data the manufacturers have 
reported or would report.
     Whether the EWR data have been useful or are likely to be 
useful in opening investigations into potential safety related defects 
and whether those investigations have resulted or may result in 
recalls.
     The effect that reduction and/or addition of EWR data 
would have on the quantity and quality of the data and ODI's ability to 
identify possible safety-related defects.
     ODI's ability to monitor a group of vehicles and identify 
possible defects without EWR data.
     The burden on manufacturers.
     The burden on NHTSA.

We did not receive any comments addressing the appropriateness of these 
considerations, which were listed in the NPRM. Accordingly, we conclude 
that,

[[Page 47745]]

as appropriate, these matters may be considered in delineating a 
reporting threshold.
    The general approach of the EWR program is to collect very large 
amounts of data on a wide range and volume of vehicles and, to a lesser 
degree, equipment, and then systematically review the data, with the 
goal of identifying potential safety problems that may be revealed by 
examining the data. These data along with other information collected 
by and available to the agency are considered in deciding whether to 
open investigations.
    After conducting extensive reviews of the EWR data over the last 
several years, NHTSA has determined that today's final rule will reduce 
overall the number of manufacturers that must provide comprehensive EWR 
submissions. The amount and usefulness of data that will no longer be 
required to be submitted will not be significant to NHTSA in assisting 
in the identification of safety related defects.

C. Light Vehicles

    The current EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers 
producing 500 or more vehicles per year to provide quarterly EWR 
reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.21. Light vehicle manufacturers producing 
fewer than 500 vehicles are not required to provide quarterly reports, 
but must provide information related to a claim or notice alleging a 
death received by the manufacturer. 49 CFR 579.27.
    The NPRM proposed amending 49 CFR 579.21 to raise the reporting 
threshold for light vehicle manufacturers from 500 to 5,000 or more 
vehicles produced per year. Under this approach, light vehicle 
manufacturers annually producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles would not 
provide quarterly reports containing comprehensive data, but would be 
required, under 49 CFR 579.27, to provide information related to a 
claim or notice alleging a death received by the manufacturer.
    Our proposal to raise the light vehicle threshold was based in 
large part on our experience in collecting, reviewing and analyzing 
over four (4) years of EWR data. As we explained in the NPRM, the light 
vehicle EWR reporting sector consists of 62 manufacturers that submit 
an immense amount of EWR data to NHTSA every quarter. In the third 
quarter of 2008 alone, light vehicle manufacturers submitted EWR data 
with 2,700 property damage claims, 10.2 million warranty claims, 
770,000 consumer complaints and 390,000 field reports \2\ based on 168 
million light vehicles. Light vehicle manufacturers submitted 
approximately 20,000 copies of field reports detailed in the third 
quarter of 2008 and information on approximately 1,200 death and injury 
incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A field report is defined as a communication in writing, 
including communications in electronic form, from an employee or 
representative of a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment, a dealer or authorized service facility of such 
manufacturer, or an entity known to the manufacturer as owning or 
operating a fleet, to the manufacturer regarding the failure, 
malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, 
produced for sale by that manufacturer and transported beyond the 
direct control of the manufacturer, regardless of whether verified 
or assessed to be lacking in merit, but does not include any 
document covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work 
product exclusion. See 49 CFR 579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Larger volume light vehicle manufacturers submit the overall 
majority of the EWR data in this reporting category. Conversely, 
manufacturers of 5,000 or fewer light vehicles do not submit much EWR 
information. It is common for these smaller volume manufacturers to 
submit zero (0) or (1) complaint, claim or field report for a specific 
model and model year. This limited amount of EWR data from the 
relatively smaller light vehicle manufacturers is of little, if any, 
assistance to ODI in detecting potential safety-related defects.
    As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA employs several analytical methods to 
identify potential concerns. The agency uses statistical methodologies 
to discover outliers or trends, conducts manual reviews and analyses of 
EWR data, and evaluates other information, such as Vehicle Owner 
Questionnaires (VOQs), when evaluating EWR data. Review of EWR 
submissions from smaller volume light vehicle manufacturers has not 
been productive in identifying possible safety-related defects in light 
vehicles.
    Manufacturers producing 5,000 or more vehicles per year have filed 
almost all of the safety recalls initiated in the last five (5) years. 
Between January 2003 and January 2008, there were a total of 646 light 
vehicle recalls. Ninety-three percent of these recalls involved 
manufacturers annually producing 5,000 or more vehicles. More 
significantly, none of the EWR data submitted by light vehicle 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year has prompted 
an investigation leading to a recall. In fact, all of the ODI light 
vehicle investigations prompted by EWR data involved vehicles from 
manufacturers annually producing 5,000 or more light vehicles.\3\ 
Moreover, in that same time period, only two recalls pertaining to 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 light vehicles per year were 
influenced by ODI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Since the first quarter of EWR reporting, EWR light vehicle 
data have assisted or prompted 80 ODI investigations into potential 
safety defects in light vehicles, with the aggregate data or field 
reports (non-dealer) data sets most often providing the more useful 
information. Overall, these investigations led to 35 recalls 
involving more than 18 million units.
    \4\ These two recalls were NHTSA Recall No. 04V-589 and 06V-075, 
which involved vehicles about which ODI had information other than 
EWR data to prompt its investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford, the Alliance, AIAM, NTEA, SBA and VSCI all supported amending 
49 CFR 579.21 to raise the light vehicle reporting threshold from 500 
to 5,000 or more vehicles produced per year. We did not receive any 
comments opposing the proposal.
    Accordingly, we are adopting the amendment as proposed. Even though 
32 light vehicle manufacturers will no longer submit quarterly EWR 
data, NHTSA's ability to monitor vehicles made by these small volume 
manufacturers for potential safety concerns will remain intact. Small 
volume manufacturers will still be required to report fatality 
information pursuant to 49 CFR 579.27. NHTSA will also continue to 
receive the traditional screening information on these vehicles, such 
as VOQs and TSBs.
    The Alliance and VSCI requested that small-volume subsidiaries of 
light vehicle manufacturers, i.e., subsidiaries producing fewer than 
5,000 vehicles, report as independent, small-volume manufacturers. The 
Alliance contends that EWR data from small-volume subsidiaries is not 
likely to lead to a defect investigation or recall. Both the Alliance 
and VSCI assert that requiring small-volume subsidiaries to report 
places a disproportionate burden on these entities that report 
independently from their larger parent when compared to independent 
small vehicle manufacturers. In addition, the Alliance and VSCI claim 
EWR data from these small subsidiaries produce no safety benefit. While 
the Alliance requested that small-volume subsidiaries be excluded from 
quarterly EWR reporting, VSCI recommended that small-volume 
subsidiaries submit quarterly reports if there is a ``sponsorship 
relationship'' between the two manufacturers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ VSCI recommends that ``sponsorship relationship'' be defined 
as:
    A relationship between two manufacturers such that one vehicle 
manufacturer is deemed to be a sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a 
vehicle assembled by a second manufacturer because the first 
manufacturer has a substantial role in the development and 
manufacturing process of the second manufacturer's vehicle. Examples 
of factors that will be considered in determining the existence of a 
`substantial role' include: A similarity of design between the cars 
produced by the two manufacturers; a sharing of engines, 
transmissions, platforms, interior systems, or production tooling; 
no payment for services or assistance provided to one manufacturer 
by the other; and shared import and/or sales distribution channels.

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

[[Page 47746]]

    We decline to adopt the Alliance's and VSCI's recommendations to 
exempt small-volume subsidiaries from filing quarterly EWR reports. We 
believe that data concerning the small-volume subsidiaries of large 
manufacturers is likely at times to produce useful information. In 
addition, the relationship between a small-volume subsidiary and its 
corporate parent are such that the subsidiary may rely on its parent 
for assistance in filing EWR reports.
    Increasing globalization of the auto industry has increased 
engineering, component and design sharing as manufacturers attempt to 
meet competitive challenges. Sharing components with their parent 
corporations significantly increases the possibility that a subsidiary 
may share a potential safety concern with a parent. For example, the 
Volkswagen Group D1 platform is shared with the Bentley Continental GT 
and the Bentley Continental Flying Spur and BMW shares engines and 
other parts with Rolls Royce models. In our view, obtaining EWR data 
from small-volume subsidiaries is important for spotting potential 
safety concerns that may exist in both a subsidiary and a parent.\6\ 
The agency believes that the benefit of the EWR data provided by these 
small-volume subsidiaries assists in the identification of potential 
safety-related defects and outweighs the minimal reporting burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Since 2004, small-volume subsidiaries referenced in the 
Alliance's comments have conducted fifteen (15) recalls and another 
model of a small-volume subsidiary was the subject of an agency 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Alliance and VSCI claim that the burden to report for 
small-volume subsidiaries is greater on the parent than the costs 
imposed on small independents. The Alliance also claimed that the EWR 
requirements place small-volume subsidiaries, such as Bentley, Bugati, 
Lamborghini and Rolls Royce at a competitive disadvantage. Neither 
commenter, however, submitted any support for these assertions. Without 
support, these claims are unpersuasive. Small-volume subsidiaries often 
are supported by their parents in the form of technology sharing or 
other resources. Because such support is available to small-volume 
subsidiaries, we are not persuaded that these subsidiaries are unduly 
burdened by the EWR quarterly reporting requirement.
    AIAM's comments requested NHTSA to exempt EWR data generated from 
vehicles in U.S. territories \7\ as a ``logical outgrowth'' of the 
NPRM's light vehicle proposal. AIAM cited the TREAD Act provision 
prohibiting NHTSA from establishing unduly burdensome EWR requirements 
and requiring the agency to balance the costs of compliance against the 
usefulness of the data. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D). According to 
AIAM, the cost to collect data from territories is extremely burdensome 
compared to the safety benefits of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ AIAM cites to 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), which states: 
``State'' means a State of the United States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIAM argues that several factors support its request for an 
exemption from reporting EWR data from U.S. territories. AIAM states 
there are relatively small numbers of vehicles sold in the U.S. 
territories (only one half to one percent of U.S. vehicle sales, 
according to AIAM), the amount of data collected is small, and the 
burden to collect the data is high because manufacturers typically rely 
upon manual entry to process EWR reporting from U.S. territories. AIAM 
claims that this imposes a disproportionate burden on manufacturers in 
relation to the small number of vehicles in the U.S. territories. 
Moreover, AIAM asserts that excluding U.S. territories from reporting 
should not significantly affect NHTSA's assessment of possible defect 
trends, since the vast majority of data for each model vehicle would 
continue to be reported and fatalities would still be reported. Thus, 
AIAM requests that NHTSA amend the first paragraph of 579.21 by adding: 
``With respect to paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, inclusion of 
data from Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam American 
Samoa, and the Virgin Islands is not required.''
    We decline to adopt AIAM's recommendation to exempt manufacturers 
from reporting EWR data collected in U.S. territories. First, we do not 
agree that AIAM's recommendation is a ``logical outgrowth'' of our 
proposal to raise the light vehicle threshold to 5,000 vehicles per 
year and, therefore, it is outside the scope of NPRM. The NPRM did not 
propose to create a new exemption excluding data from a geographic 
region from quarterly EWR reports. Rather, the NPRM proposed amending 
the existing threshold, which is based upon whether a manufacturer's 
aggregate total of vehicles manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or 
imported in the United States reaches a certain volume. See 67 FR 45822 
(July 10, 2002). We have never proposed to exempt data from territories 
from inclusion in a light vehicle manufacturer's quarterly EWR report 
once the manufacturer's aggregate total reaches the threshold. 
Accordingly, we decline to adopt AIAM's recommendation because it is 
outside the scope of the NPRM.
    Even assuming that AIAM's recommendation was within the scope of 
the NPRM, we would not adopt it. We note that the TREAD Act amended the 
Safety Act to require manufacturers to report EWR data related to motor 
vehicle safety in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in the 
United States. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A) & (B). As AIAM has 
recognized, the Safety Act defines a ``state'' to include Puerto Rico, 
the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin 
Islands. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10).
    Furthermore, we do not believe the burden to report EWR data on 
vehicles from the U.S. territories is excessive. Under the provision 
authorizing the EWR program, NHTSA cannot impose requirements that are 
unduly burdensome to a manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D). When 
considering whether a requirement under the EWR regulation is unduly 
burdensome, NHTSA must take into account the manufacturer's costs of 
complying with the EWR requirements and NHTSA's ability to use the 
information in a meaningful manner to assist in the identification of 
safety-related defects. Id. AIAM did not submit any cost data to 
support its contention that obtaining vehicle data from the U.S. 
territories is unduly burdensome. Other than stating that its members 
manually process such data, it does not explain how the processing of 
this information is burdensome. AIAM acknowledges that the number of 
reportable EWR data points from territories is negligible. With such a 
small amount of EWR data to report, the cost to submit this information 
appears to be negligible. However, because a vehicle sold in the 
territories may manifest a defect found in the same model sold 
elsewhere in the United States, this information could be useful in 
detecting patterns related to the safety of that model.
    Moreover, AIAM does not address the costs of reporting specific 
types of EWR data. For example, the burden to report consumer 
complaints generated from consumers in U.S. territories appears to be 
small. Typically, manufacturers have

[[Page 47747]]

customer service centers that are operated either by the manufacturer 
in-house or outsourced to a third party. The majority of manufacturers 
have Internet websites available for consumer comments. Consumers can 
contact manufacturers by telephone or the Internet to request 
information or lodge a complaint. These points of contact are normally 
networked with a manufacturer's data system. Accordingly, we do not 
believe that the burden to report EWR data is unduly burdensome and 
AIAM offers nothing to the contrary.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We also believe that the data collected from U.S. 
territories will assist in the identification of safety-related 
defects. For instance, Puerto Rico has a population of slightly 
fewer than four million people, which is more than 24 states and the 
District of Columbia. Puerto Rico has over 2.6 million registered 
vehicles, which is more than twenty-one (21) states. In our view, 
losing such a large volume of vehicles will hinder our ability to 
identify potential safety issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt the recommendations 
of AIAM, the Alliance and VSCI to exempt small-volume subsidiaries and 
reporting regarding activities in U.S. territories from EWR quarterly 
reporting.

D. Trailers

    The EWR regulation requires trailer manufacturers producing 500 or 
more trailers per year to submit comprehensive EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 
CFR 579.24. Trailer manufacturers annually producing fewer than 500 
vehicles are not required to provide quarterly reports to NHTSA, but 
must provide information related to a claim or notice alleging a death 
received by the manufacturer. 49 CFR 579.27.
    The NPRM proposed amending 49 CFR 579.24 to raise the reporting 
threshold for trailer manufacturers from its current level of 500 to 
5,000 or more trailers per year. Under this approach, trailer 
manufacturers that producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year would 
not provide comprehensive reports to NHTSA, but would be required to 
provide fatality information under 49 CFR 579.27.
    Our proposal to amend the trailer threshold was based on our 
experience in collecting, reviewing and analyzing EWR data over four 
(4) years. As we explained in the preamble to the NPRM, approximately 
280 trailer manufacturers currently submit a large amount of data to 
NHTSA every quarter. See 73 FR 74101, 74107-08. For the third quarter 
of 2008, trailer manufacturers submitted approximately 130 property 
damage claims, 50,000 warranty claims, 8,000 consumer complaints and 
450 field reports related to 15 million trailers. For scores of trailer 
manufacturers currently producing 500 or more vehicles, but fewer than 
5,000 vehicles, the proposed amendment would greatly reduce their 
reporting burden.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 trailers 
annually would be required to provide information related to a claim 
or notice alleging a death received by the manufacturer. 49 CFR 
579.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As pointed out in the preamble to the NPRM, NHTSA does not believe 
establishing a threshold level of 5,000 trailers will meaningfully 
reduce EWR trailer data. Although raising the threshold for the trailer 
category to 5,000 relieves 219 trailer manufacturers from quarterly EWR 
reporting, our analysis indicates that manufacturers producing 5,000 or 
more trailers account for nearly 80% of all trailer production volume 
and 70% of the EWR aggregate trailer data. We do not believe that the 
reduction in manufacturers, production data or aggregate data will 
reduce our ability to identify potential defects. Manufacturers 
producing fewer than 5,000 trailers per year generally do not provide 
robust EWR data that assists in identifying potential defects. See 73 
FR 74101, 74107-08.
    In the preamble to the NPRM, we noted that quarterly EWR data from 
small-volume trailer manufacturers presented little information and is 
unlikely to lead a defect investigation. NHTSA's traditional screening 
tools, such as fleet contacts, technical service bulletins and VOQs 
have proven effective at identifying safety concerns in the smaller 
volume trailers and leading to defect investigations. Id. The NPRM 
noted that ODI influenced 421 trailer recalls from 2003 to 2008.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Jayco, a manufacturer of recreational vehicles and 
trailers, correctly pointed out that the statement in the NPRM 
regarding the number of influenced trailer recalls requires 
clarification. The NPRM failed to explain that we were unable to 
determine the production levels for a number of trailer 
manufacturers conducting recalls at the time of the recall. We could 
not determine an annual production level for the manufacturer for 
140 recalls. Of the remaining recalls, nearly 160 were conducted by 
trailer manufacturers producing more than 5,000 trailers per year. 
There were also 121 trailer recalls conducted by trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers per year. For the 
121 trailer recalls conducted by trailer manufacturers producing 
fewer than 5,000 trailers, 43 of those recalls were influenced by 
ODI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nine (9) commenters responded to our proposal to raise the trailer 
threshold. RVIA, TTMA, NTEA, NATM, NMMA and SBA all supported the 
proposed amendment to 49 CFR 579.24. Many of these commenters concurred 
that the amended threshold would reduce the burden of EWR reporting on 
small manufacturers without any material reduction to NHTSA's ability 
to identify potential safety-related defects.
    Big Tex Trailers Manufacturing, Inc. (Big Tex), Carry-On Trailer, 
Inc., and PJ Trailers Manufacturing, Inc, all manufacturers that 
annually produce more than 5,000 trailers, submitted comments opposing 
our proposal. They argue that raising the threshold would undermine 
NHTSA's ability to identify safety-related defects. These commenters 
assert that NHTSA's estimates on the number of trailer manufacturers 
producing fewer than 5,000 trailers are very low. These companies also 
claim and that raising the threshold will largely eliminate quarterly 
EWR reporting data for trailers with 20,000 GVWR or more (which 
allegedly pose a greater risk to safety than trailers less than 20,000 
GVWR) even though the reporting burden is the same for large and small 
manufacturers. However, these three companies did not submit any data 
to support these claims.
    Big Tex claims that there are ``hundreds'' of trailer manufacturers 
who are not reporting--either due to noncompliance with the EWR rule or 
because they produce fewer than 500 units per year. However, Big Tex 
did not submit any supporting information, such as trailer 
manufacturers subject to comprehensive EWR reporting that are not 
reporting. Our information indicates otherwise. NHTSA contacted over 
2,300 trailer manufacturers, advised them of their EWR-reporting 
requirements and requested their annual production volume. Our results 
indicate that trailer manufacturers required to file EWR reports are 
doing so. Even if considerable numbers of manufacturers are not meeting 
their obligations, the comments do not address whether the quality and 
quantity of EWR data contained within the reports would provide 
sufficient information to assist in the identification of potential 
defects. Smaller trailer manufacturers often have little or no EWR data 
to report. Such reporting results in product lines with no reportable 
data or reports of small numbers of incidents from quarter to quarter 
that are not indicative of meaningful trends. The data gleaned from 
these reports are simply not helpful to NHTSA.
    Big-Tex also argues that raising the threshold to 5,000 or more 
units per year will eliminate EWR reporting for a significant number of 
trailer manufacturers producing trailers over 20,000 GVWR, which Big-
Tex contends pose the greatest risk to safety. Big Tex offers no basis 
supporting this alleged greater safety risk. Our experience indicates 
that trailers over 20,000 GVWR or over are generally maintained by 
fleets. If these trailers experience any down time, the fleet operator 
will lose

[[Page 47748]]

potential revenue. Thus, these fleets have an economic incentive to 
regularly maintain and inspect their trailers. Moreover, fleet 
operators often communicate directly with manufacturers regarding 
maintenance and safety. As a result, heavier trailers do not 
necessarily pose a greater defect risk than other trailer types. Our 
experience with investigations of trailers over 20,000 GVWR does not 
support the premise that these trailers pose a greater defect risk.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, in 2008, trailer manufacturers conducted a 
total of 116 recalls, with 99 of the recalls involving trailers less 
than 26,000 GVWR. Of the 116 recalls, ODI influenced 85 recalls, 
with 75 of those influenced recalls involving trailers less than 
26,000 GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Big-Tex's claim that raising the reporting threshold to 5,000 or 
more trailers per year will cause a significant loss of EWR data for 
trailers over 20,000 GVWR is incorrect. Our evaluation shows that 
raising the threshold to 5,000 or more trailers annually will still 
result in receiving ninety-six (96) percent of the current production 
data being submitted to NHTSA from manufacturers producing trailers 
over 20,000 GVWR. Because the aggregate data in this vehicle category 
has not proven particularly useful, this reduction will not 
significantly reduce our ability to adequately identify potential 
safety-related defects in trailers over 20,000 GVWR.
    Big-Tex also states that the reporting burdens for larger trailer 
manufacturers are similar to smaller manufacturers. Big-Tex provides no 
data to support this claim. NHTSA's analysis of EWR trailer data 
weighed the costs of reporting EWR data with the agency's ability to 
use it to identify potential safety defects. Our evaluation of trailer 
EWR data indicates that data from trailer manufacturers producing more 
than 5,000 trailers per year have more depth, tend to be consistent 
from quarter to quarter and are most likely to provide assistance in 
detecting defects. The same cannot be said for EWR data from trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 per year.
    Accordingly, we are amending 49 CFR 579.22 to raise the reporting 
threshold for trailer manufacturers to 5,000 or more vehicles produced 
annually.

E. Buses

    Medium-heavy vehicle and bus manufacturers producing 500 or more 
units per year currently submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 
579.22. There are approximately 20 bus manufacturers submitting 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. For the third quarter of 2008, bus 
manufacturers submitted, approximately 6 property damage claims, 74,000 
warranty claims, 1,000 consumer complaints and 2,700 field reports on 
750,000 buses. They also submitted approximately 150 copies of field 
reports.
    The preamble to the NPRM stated that there is a significant need to 
amend the threshold level of reporting for manufacturers of buses 
because buses--whether school buses, transit buses, or motor coaches--
have unique characteristics. These vehicles carry more occupants than 
other vehicle types, which increases safety risks on a per-vehicle 
basis. Because of the potential for multiple fatalities and injuries 
from a single crash, there is greater urgency for identifying safety 
concerns at the earliest possible time. Our NPRM noted that several 
recent bus crashes reinforced the importance of creating a special EWR 
status for bus manufacturers similar to that of child restraint 
manufacturers. See 73 FR 74101, 74108.
    Our proposal considered factors for different thresholds, such as 
the likelihood of capturing useful data and bus safety risks, balanced 
against data submission burdens and the agency's costs. Our experience 
with recalls by bus manufacturers producing fewer than 500 vehicles per 
year reinforced the need to expand early warning reporting. Further, 
the safety risk presented by bus defects outweighs the costs of start-
up and on-going reporting of EWR data. Id.
    NTEA and SBA both commented on our proposal to eliminate the 
reporting threshold for manufacturers of buses. Both opposed the 
proposal. We did not receive any comments from manufacturers of buses. 
SBA noted that NHTSA's reference to bus crashes does not address 
whether EWR reporting would have prevented those crashes. It 
recommended that NHTSA reassess changing the EWR bus reporting 
threshold, and determine whether the burden reduction analysis stated 
for the light vehicle and trailer categories would be appropriate for 
buses. NTEA recognized the greater safety concern for buses, but urged 
NHTSA to revise its proposal to include a low, small-volume threshold. 
NTEA asserts that NHTSA's proposal is too broad, creating large burdens 
for small manufacturers and capturing manufacturers not intended to 
report under the EWR rule as bus manufacturers. Specifically, NTEA 
argues that a company building one bus would be required to file 
quarterly reports, which would be a significant burden. Furthermore, 
NTEA states that the agency's definition of a bus (a motor vehicle with 
motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 
persons, see 49 CFR 579.4(b)) is so broad that the proposal would 
require all kinds of manufacturers, including manufacturers of 
limousines with very low production levels, to submit quarterly EWR 
reports. As a result, NTEA believes, the proposal sweeps up hundreds of 
smaller manufacturers. NTEA contends that the agency's estimate that 
only seventeen bus manufacturers would become obligated to make 
quarterly EWR reports is very low. But NTEA did not submit names of bus 
manufacturers that would be required to report if the reporting 
threshold were lowered.
    NHTSA estimated that seventeen manufacturers would be required to 
submit quarterly EWR reports if it eliminated the bus threshold. The 
agency stated that most of these manufacturers produce hundreds of 
buses per year, but were below the existing reporting threshold. 
However, as NTEA points out, the proposed elimination of the EWR bus 
reporting threshold captures many manufacturers that have an annual 
production of 100 or fewer buses. Our proposal intended to capture 
additional manufacturers of school buses, transit buses and motor 
coaches, not very small manufacturers of limousines and similar 
vehicles.
    The distinguishing characteristic of buses is that they transport 
numerous people, and a single bus crash may result in many injuries and 
fatalities. The bus crashes we referenced, as SBA pointed out, were not 
singled out to suggest that EWR data would have prevented those 
particular bus crashes. Their purpose was simply to illustrate that bus 
crashes can result in multiple deaths and injuries. Because of this 
characteristic, we believe that there is a strong safety interest in 
improving our ability to identify potential defects in buses. This 
benefit outweighs the burden on reporting for these additional bus 
manufacturers.
    Bus manufacturers producing fewer than 500 buses per year conduct a 
significant number of recalls every year. Since 2003, there have been 
approximately 39 recalls involving 8,000 buses by bus manufacturers 
producing fewer than 500 buses annually. Because of passenger density, 
defect related safety risks could affect tens of thousands of 
passengers per year. Moreover, NHTSA's traditional data collection 
methods are not as robust for buses as compared to light vehicles and 
other vehicles. For example, vehicle owner complaints, which are a 
vital source of information on light vehicles, are rare for buses. 
Given the potential harm from just one bus crash, NHTSA concludes that

[[Page 47749]]

reducing the threshold for reporting by bus manufacturers to permit 
identification of potential defects is appropriate.
    Consideration of comments from SBA and NTEA led NHTSA to re-examine 
the EWR reporting threshold for buses including the utility of the data 
produced. At the outset, we recognize that very small volume 
manufacturers would not submit EWR data robust enough to permit 
expeditious identification of potential defects. Therefore, data from 
manufacturers producing few buses will not be required to report. 
However, due to the strong safety concerns with regard to buses, 
expanded reporting is necessary. We believe that an appropriate 
reporting threshold is 100 buses per year. Of the seventeen bus 
manufacturers identified in the NPRM as producing fewer than 500 buses 
per year, fifteen produce 100 or more buses annually.
    In addition, NHTSA analyzes EWR data submitted by bus and medium-
heavy vehicle manufacturers on a quarterly basis. In this analysis, 
agency staff rank potential issues by vehicle make and model. Data from 
each quarter identify dozens of makes and models of buses and medium-
heavy vehicles that require further evaluation by ODI. In the last six 
quarterly evaluations, NHTSA has preliminarily identified fifteen bus 
models from seven different manufacturers for further evaluation.
    The NPRM estimated that the costs for each additional bus 
manufacturer would include a one-time start-up cost of approximately 
$3,500 and an annual reporting cost of approximately $13,000. See 73 FR 
74101, 74109. SBA requested that we reconsider the burden reporting 
imposes on small business bus manufacturers. That agency did not submit 
any cost data or estimates for us to consider. Indeed, none of the 
commenters submitted cost information to assist in our determination of 
the cost of quarterly reporting for small businesses manufacturing 
buses. Considering the potential safety consequences and the 
considerable potential value EWR data may have in helping prevent bus 
crashes, fires or related injuries, the compliance costs are not unduly 
burdensome. As discussed further in section VI.B, below, ten (10) of 
the fifteen bus manufacturers that produce 100 or more buses annually 
are considered small businesses according to criteria used for analysis 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. For 
the reasons explained in that section, we do not believe that this 
burden will be a significant economic impact on these bus 
manufacturers. In our view, setting the EWR reporting threshold to 
require EWR quarterly reports from bus manufacturers producing 100 or 
more buses per year strikes the correct balance between the interests 
of smaller manufacturers and public safety.
    Based upon the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR 579.22 to lower 
the current reporting threshold for bus manufacturers from 500 or more 
buses annually to 100 or more buses per year. We are also amending 49 
CFR 579.22 to distinguish buses from other medium-heavy vehicles so 
manufacturers producing both buses and medium-heavy vehicles do not 
aggregate production of all their products for EWR reporting purposes. 
Thus, a manufacturer that produces both buses and other medium heavy 
vehicles does not have to also submit quarterly EWR reports for its 
medium-heavy vehicles until its annual production of those vehicles 
reaches the medium-heavy reporting threshold.

F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles

    Medium-heavy vehicle and bus manufacturers annually producing 500 
or more units have been required to submit quarterly EWR reports to 
NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22. The vehicles in this category include emergency 
vehicles, recreational vehicles, trucks, tractors or others.\12\ 49 CFR 
579.4(c). For medium-heavy vehicles (other than buses), we proposed to 
keep the quarterly reporting threshold at 500 or more vehicles produced 
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For medium-heavy vehicle and bus category, vehicle type 
means: Truck, tractor, transit bus, school bus, coach, recreational 
vehicle, emergency vehicle or other. 49 CFR 579.4(c). While buses 
are included within this category, they have been addressed 
previously in section E of this notice and are not included in the 
following discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM noted that approximately 65 emergency vehicle, 
recreational vehicle, truck, and tractor manufacturers were submitting 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. See 73 FR 74101, 74109-10. For the 
third quarter of 2008, these manufacturers submitted approximately 125 
property damage claims, 480,000 warranty claims, 14,000 consumer 
complaints and 34,000 field reports on 6 million vehicles. Id. These 
vehicle manufacturers report data on approximately 300,000 potential 
products-components (the number of distinct models reported by these 
manufacturers multiplied by the number of components in EWR). In 
addition to the large amount of aggregate data submitted for the third 
quarter of 2008, these manufacturers reported approximately 40 death 
and injury incidents and provided 2,000 copies of non-dealer field 
reports.
    The December 5, 2008 NPRM indicated that we would leave the EWR 
reporting threshold for medium-heavy manufacturers (excluding buses) 
unchanged due to a combination of factors, such as the proportion of 
manufacturers that would no longer have to report, the proportion of 
vehicles that would no longer be subject to reporting and the effect 
that the reduction of EWR data would have on ODI's ability to detect 
potential safety defects. Id.
    SBA and NTEA both commented on our proposal to keep the medium-
heavy reporting threshold at 500 or more vehicles. Both objected to 
keeping the threshold unchanged. SBA recommended that NHTSA reassess 
the benefits and burdens of medium-heavy vehicle EWR reporting and 
determine if burden reduction would be appropriate. Similarly, NTEA 
requested that the agency reassess its proposal and afford small volume 
medium-heavy manufacturers the same regulatory relief as the small 
volume manufacturers of light vehicles and trailers. NTEA noted that 
several of the recalls referenced by NHTSA in the preamble would not 
have been affected by an increase to the medium-heavy vehicle reporting 
threshold. NTEA also pointed out increasing the reporting threshold for 
the medium-heavy category to 5,000 or more vehicles would cause a loss 
of six percent of the aggregate data and thirteen percent of production 
data. NTEA argued that this analysis of medium-heavy vehicles could be 
further refined depending upon the type of medium-heavy vehicle. In 
NTEA's view, these analyses would likely show that raising the 
threshold would have little effect for certain vehicle types.
    Our NPRM analysis focused on the number of manufacturers, by 
vehicle type, that would no longer have to report at certain threshold 
levels, the amount of EWR data lost by raising the threshold, the 
effect of data reduction on our ability to identify possible defects 
that might be safety related and our ability to monitor medium-heavy 
vehicles without EWR data. Examination of varying threshold levels 
(1,000, 2,500 and 5,000) revealed that manufacturers in certain vehicle 
types would no longer submit comprehensive EWR reports. The largest 
reduction of manufacturers would occur in the emergency vehicle 
category (50 percent, 75 percent and 75 percent, respectively). 
Similarly, we found that the greatest percentage loss of aggregate data 
from the threshold changes would be within the emergency vehicle 
category (45

[[Page 47750]]

percent, 100 percent and 100 percent, respectively). The NPRM cited 
prior recalls that, in our view, illustrated a need to continue to 
obtain EWR data from small volume manufacturers in order to receive 
timely information.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NTEA commented that the recalls we referenced were not 
related to medium-heavy vehicles that produce fewer than 5,000 
vehicles. After further review, it appears that Recall number 03V-
035 should have been 04V-035, which involve recreational vehicles. 
Recall number 03V-465 appears to be a mistake. It involves only 
recreational trailers and not any recreational vehicles. The 
remaining recalls all involve manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles 
that produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually. See 73 FR 74109-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the SBA and NTEA comments, we have reviewed relevant 
information, including the loss of EWR data that would occur if the 
threshold were raised. Raising the threshold for medium-heavy vehicles, 
even slightly, would foreclose EWR reporting by significant numbers of 
emergency vehicle manufacturers.
    In our view, emergency vehicle reports are important for safety. 
For purposes of EWR, these vehicles include ambulances and fire trucks. 
This has been reflected historically in EWR reports wherein 
manufacturers' reports on emergency vehicles (a type of vehicle in EWR 
reporting) have included ambulances and fire trucks. These vehicles 
have characteristics that are distinguishable from other medium-heavy 
vehicles. They operate under high stress conditions, transport 
emergency personnel, and carry individuals in need of urgent medical 
care.
    Raising the EWR quarterly reporting threshold from 500 or more 
would severely impact the EWR program's ability to monitor emergency 
vehicles. At a threshold level of 1,000 or more vehicles, 50 percent of 
all emergency vehicle manufacturers would no longer report EWR data, 
presenting a loss of 47 percent of production and 45 percent of 
aggregate data. At a threshold level of 2,500 or more vehicles, 75 
percent of all emergency vehicle manufacturers would no longer report 
EWR data, a loss of 73 percent of production and all of the aggregate 
data currently in ARTEMIS. The elimination of such a significant amount 
of emergency vehicle production and EWR data would severely impact the 
ability of NHTSA to identify potential defect trends in these vehicles.
    Recent use of EWR medium-heavy vehicle data illustrates the 
negative impact stemming from significant losses of emergency vehicle 
EWR data. NHTSA analyzes the medium and heavy vehicle EWR data each 
quarter. The highest ranked vehicles--those with an increasing claim 
trend or a claims spike--present potential defect issues. For vehicles 
ranked the highest, NHTSA reviews other available information, such as 
VOQs, TSBs, and existing recalls, to further assess any potential 
defect risk. In the last six quarters, six different makes and models 
of emergency vehicles were identified within the highest ranked 
vehicles. Each of these vehicles was made by a manufacturer annually 
producing fewer than 2,500 vehicles. Finally, we note there have been 
65 recalls of emergency vehicles in the last ten years, with more than 
half of those recalls conducted by manufacturers producing fewer than 
5,000 vehicles annually. Therefore, raising the EWR reporting threshold 
for emergency vehicles would impair the identification of potential 
defects in these specialty vehicles.
    NHTSA also revisited its analyses of the appropriate threshold for 
other medium-heavy vehicle types. The agency has decided to raise the 
threshold for these vehicle types: Recreational vehicle, truck, tractor 
and other. Raising the EWR reporting threshold for these medium-heavy 
vehicle types would not have a detrimental effect on identifying 
possible defects. Using the EWR data from the third quarter of 2008, 
raising the threshold 500 to 1,000 or more for recreational vehicle, 
truck, tractor and other medium-heavy vehicles (excluding buses and 
emergency vehicles) per year would result in a small loss of production 
data and aggregate data (one percent and six tenths of one percent, 
respectively). Raising the reporting threshold to 2,500 or more for 
recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and other medium-heavy vehicles 
(excluding buses and emergency vehicles) results in a four percent loss 
of production data and a three percent loss of aggregate data. 
Increasing the reporting threshold to 5,000 or more for recreational 
vehicle, truck, tractor and other (excluding buses and emergency 
vehicles) results in a loss of ten percent of the production volume and 
a six percent loss of the aggregate data. In our view, raising the 
threshold to 5,000 or more would not significantly impair 
identification of potential safety-related defects in recreational 
vehicle, truck, tractor and other medium-heavy vehicles (excluding 
buses and emergency vehicles).
    Indeed, recent reviews of EWR medium-heavy vehicle data from 
recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and other medium-heavy vehicles 
(excluding buses and emergency vehicles) indicate that the majority of 
the vehicles with the highest ranking for further review are produced 
by manufacturers building more than 5,000 or more vehicles per year. 
Even though this method is normalized for production, 95 percent of the 
vehicles reviewed were from manufacturers that produced 5,000 or more 
units per year. Further, EWR data from manufacturers producing fewer 
than 5,000 recreational vehicle, truck, tractor and other medium-heavy 
vehicles (excluding buses and emergency vehicles) have not prompted an 
investigation or recall. To date, the EWR data for medium-heavy truck 
manufacturers annually producing more than 5,000 vehicles has prompted 
or influenced ten (10) investigations, several informal inquires, eight 
(8) recalls and one (1) owner notification program.
    Based upon the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR 579.22 to raise 
the medium-heavy vehicle (other than buses and emergency vehicles) EWR 
comprehensive reporting threshold from its current level of 500 to 
5,000 or more vehicles produced per year. For emergency vehicles, we 
have decided to maintain the reporting threshold at its current level 
of 500 or more vehicles per year. Consistent with our approach towards 
bus manufacturers, we are amending 49 CFR 579.22 to treat emergency 
vehicles and other medium-heavy vehicles separately so that 
manufacturers producing both emergency vehicles and other medium-heavy 
vehicles, such as recreational vehicles, trucks or tractors, do not 
aggregate production for EWR reporting purposes. Thus, a manufacturer 
that produces both emergency vehicles and other medium heavy vehicles 
does not have to also submit quarterly EWR reports for its non-
emergency vehicles unless its annual production of those vehicles 
reaches 5,000 or more.

G. Motorcycles

    The EWR regulation requires motorcycle manufacturers annually 
producing 500 or more units to submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 
49 CFR 579.23. The December 2008 NPRM proposed leaving the existing EWR 
motorcycle reporting threshold unchanged. We based this decision on a 
combination of factors, including the proportion of manufacturers 
impacted by any change, the proportion of motorcycles that would no 
longer be included in reports due to a threshold change, the effect 
reducing EWR data would have on our ability to identify possible 
safety-related defects, and the safety risks attendant to

[[Page 47751]]

motorcycles.\14\ See 73 FR 74101, 74110-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We also observed that motorcycle fatality and injury trends 
have risen over the past several years. While we remain concerned 
about these increasing trends, closer examination reveals that 
factors such as alcohol use and a declining use of motorcycle 
helmets played an integral role in these trends. See Traffic Safety 
Facts 2007 Data Motorcycles, DOT HS 810 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBA and VSCI both commented on our proposal. NHTSA did not 
receive comments from any other individuals or entities on this issue. 
Both the SBA and VSCI suggested changing the motorcycle threshold. SBA 
recommended that NHTSA reassess the benefits and burdens of EWR 
reporting. Similarly, VSCI contended that there is a threshold above 
500 which addresses safety issues noted in NHTSA's proposal and reduces 
burdens on small-volume motorcycle manufacturers.
    SBA's and VSCI's comments led the agency to re-examine whether 
raising the motorcycle EWR reporting threshold would be detrimental to 
identification of possible defects. As NHTSA gains additional EWR 
experience, we have continued to refine our analytical processes and 
reviews of motorcycle EWR data. We have decided to raise the threshold 
for motorcycles from 500 to 5,000 or more units per year. Raising this 
threshold will not impair NHTSA's ability to identify possible 
motorcycle safety defects.
    Twenty-three motorcycle manufacturers presently provide EWR 
quarterly reports to NHTSA. In the third quarter of 2008, these twenty-
three manufacturers submitted approximately two property damage claims, 
104,000 warranty claims, 4,000 consumer complaints and 15,000 field 
reports for nearly seven million vehicles. These motorcycle 
manufacturers report data on approximately 37,000 potential products-
components. Analyzing EWR data received in the 3rd quarter of 2008, 
shows that raising the motorcycle reporting threshold from 500 to 1,000 
would reduce reported production and aggregate data by one-tenth of one 
percent and four-hundredths of one percent, respectively. A reporting 
threshold of 2,500 motorcycles or more would lower the production and 
aggregate data by one percent. Increasing the motorcycle reporting 
threshold to 5,000 or more would cause less than three percent of the 
production volume and seven percent of the aggregate data to not be 
reported. Raising the threshold to 5,000 or more units annually would 
relieve eight small motorcycle manufacturers from providing quarterly 
EWR reports. In our view, raising the threshold to 5,000 or more units 
per year would not impact NHTSA's identification of potential safety-
defects in motorcycles.
    Based on a review of quarterly EWR motorcycle data, EWR data from 
manufacturers producing 5,000 or more motorcycles annually appear to 
provide more assistance in identifying potential issues than 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 motorcycles per year. To date, 
EWR data from manufacturers producing 5,000 or more motorcycles per 
year has prompted or influenced five (5) investigations, several 
informal inquires and four (4) recalls. In contrast, EWR data from 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 motorcycles have not prompted 
an investigation or recall. Overall, significantly more recalls are 
conducted by large-volume motorcycle manufacturers. Motorcycle 
manufacturers have conducted 277 recalls since 2003; over 80% of these 
recalls involved motorcycles from manufacturers annually producing 
5,000 or more motorcycles
    Based upon the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR 579.23 to raise 
the EWR comprehensive reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 or more 
motorcycles annually. Manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 
motorcycles per year will be required to submit information on 
fatalities pursuant to 49 CFR 579.27.

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

    In April 2006, the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) 
petitioned the agency to amend the EWR rule to raise the EWR 
comprehensive reporting threshold for all vehicles 500 to 5,000 
vehicles annually, including final-stage manufacturers, or, 
alternatively, permit final-stage manufacturers, regardless of their 
annual production, to report on a limited basis under 49 CFR part 
579.27.
    NHTSA proposed denying NTEA's petition in the December 2008 NPRM. 
See 73 FR 74101, 74113. NTEA did not comment specifically about our 
proposed denial. Instead, NTEA chose to comment on specific vehicle 
types such buses and other medium-heavy vehicles, as noted above in 
sections IV.E and IV.F.
    Although this final rule does not create the separate category for 
final-stage manufacturers sought by NTEA, it amends the reporting 
threshold applicable to the majority of final-stage manufacturers 
producing light vehicles, trailers and medium-heavy vehicles. As 
explained in sections IV.E and IV.F above, today's final rule treats 
buses and emergency vehicles differently--those vehicles have a lower 
reporting threshold than the other medium-heavy vehicles. Accordingly, 
the requirement to submit comprehensive EWR reports varies depending on 
the type of vehicles produced. Final-stage manufacturers annually 
producing 5,000 or more light vehicles, trailers or medium-heavy 
vehicles, other than buses or emergency vehicles, are required to 
submit quarterly EWR data. Moreover, NTEA's comments recognized a need 
to treat those vehicle types differently than others. Therefore, based 
upon the foregoing, NTEA's petition is denied.

I. Data Consistency

    Manufacturers are required to follow certain filing naming 
conventions when submitting their quarterly EWR reports. 49 CFR 
579.29(a). The naming conventions do not specify a format for providing 
the model names. Manufacturers are under no obligation to provide the 
same make, model \15\ and model year\16\ name from quarter to quarter, 
although the overwhelming majority of manufacturers do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Model'' means a name that a manufacturer of motor 
vehicles applies to a family of vehicles within a make which have a 
degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab 
type. For equipment other than child restraint systems, it means the 
name that the manufacturer uses to designate it. For child restraint 
systems, it means the name that the manufacturer uses to identify 
child restraint systems with the same seat shell, buckle, base (if 
so equipped) and restraint system. 49 CFR 579.4.
    \16\ ``Model year'' means the year that a manufacturer uses to 
designate a discrete model of vehicle, irrespective of the calendar 
year in which the vehicle was manufactured. If the manufacturer has 
not assigned a model year, it means the calendar year in which the 
vehicle was manufactured. 49 CFR 579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM identified our difficulties in analyzing EWR data due to 
inconsistent model naming across different EWR quarters. See 73 FR 
74101, 74113-14. To prevent future inconsistencies, we proposed 
amending 49 CFR 579.29 to require manufacturers to provide identical 
make, model and model year information for products or to timely notify 
NHTSA of changes in these data. Our proposal did not intend to preclude 
manufacturers from changing or creating another name when a ``new'' 
product (e.g., a new model and/or model year) is reported. The 
amendment sought to require that a product's make, model, and model 
year are consistent from the first time it is given throughout 
subsequent reports. We noted that if this proposal were adopted, we 
planned on implementing a screening process to ensure data integrity 
and to reject quarterly submissions with inconsistent product names.

[[Page 47752]]

    Our intention to reject quarterly reports raised the issue of how a 
manufacturer notifies NHTSA that it plans to report a new model. We 
proposed amending the EWR reporting template to add a new field so 
manufacturers could indicate the introduction of a new make, model and 
model year vehicle. A manufacturer would populate the field with an 
``n'' for a make, model, model year vehicle with a new model name in 
its EWR submission for the quarter that the new model debuts. 
Otherwise, manufacturers would provide an ``h'' to indicate that the 
make, model, model year is not new, but a historical product.
    We received comments from the Alliance, Ford and TTMA on this 
issue. The Alliance and Ford agreed with the need for consistent model 
naming, while TTMA opposed our proposal. The Alliance, however, urged 
the agency not to revise the reporting templates by adding an 
additional field for entering an `n' for a `new' model or an `h' for a 
`historical' model.'' The Alliance believes that revising the current 
templates would impose substantial costs and burdens upon the 
manufacturers. TTMA is concerned that the designations ``h'' and ``n'' 
would be prone to data entry errors.
    We have decided to adopt the amendment to 49 CFR 579.27 as 
proposed, with a minor revision. Based upon the comments and our 
further reassessment of our data capabilities, we will not require 
manufacturers to advise the agency of a new or historical product. Our 
data system has the capability to cross-check the make, model and model 
year in new EWR reports with the make, model and model year of EWR 
reports on record. After performing this cross-check, NHTSA will be 
able to identify which model names are ``new'' and which are 
``historical'' and identify inconsistent model names. If a manufacturer 
submits a quarterly EWR report with a model name that is not consistent 
with a model name previously submitted, the system will automatically 
reject the report. On the other hand, if the quarterly EWR report 
includes a new model, our system will accept the quarterly EWR 
report.\17\ Therefore, modification of the template and use of an ``n'' 
or ``h'' designation is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We will configure ARTEMIS to identify new, historical and 
inconsistent model designations based upon the reporting year and 
model year. ARTEMIS will classify models as ``new'' when the 
reporting year and model year are within specific parameters. These 
parameters are generally based upon when manufacturers introduce 
their new models. Most manufacturers introduce new models in the 
third quarter of the prior calendar year of the designated model 
year (for instance, most 2010 models are introduced in September 
2009). Some models are introduced earlier as early model year 
entries. Thus, ARTEMIS will accept new model names that are 
submitted in an EWR report if the model year is equal to or fewer 
than 2 years from the report year. This can be expressed by the 
formula: (Model year (MY) = Reporting year (RY), MY = RY+1, or MY = 
RY+2). However, if the model year of the ``new'' model is less than 
the report year or greater than 3 years, the submission will be 
rejected because of an inconsistent model name. ARTEMIS identifies 
historical model names by cross-checking each EWR submission with 
prior EWR submissions to match identical model names and model 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR 579.27(a) to require 
model naming consistency without adopting changes to the EWR reporting 
template.

J. Correction to the Definition of Other Safety Campaign

    The NPRM noted that an inconsistency in the definitions of ``other 
safety campaign'' and ``customer satisfaction campaign'' in 49 CFR 
579.4. The inconsistency resulted from a misplaced closed parenthetical 
in the definition of ``other safety campaign.'' In both terms, the 
parentheses are meant to clarify that the definition excludes certain 
materials distributed by a manufacturer that are unrelated to a defect. 
The parentheses in the definition of ``customer satisfaction campaign'' 
are located immediately proceeding the term ``excluding'' and 
immediately after the term ``first sale.'' The definition of ``customer 
satisfaction campaign'' states in pertinent part: ``Customer 
satisfaction campaign * * * means any communication by a manufacturer * 
* * relating to repair, replacement, or modification of a vehicle * * * 
the manner in which a vehicle or child restraint system is to be 
maintained or operated (excluding promotional and marketing materials, 
customer satisfaction surveys, and operating instructions or owner's 
manuals that accompany the vehicle or child restraint system at the 
time of first sale); or advice or direction to a dealer or distributor 
to cease the delivery or sale of specified models of vehicles or 
equipment.'' In the definition of ``other safety campaign,'' the closed 
parenthetical in the definition is not immediately following the term 
``first sale'' as intended, but immediately after the word 
``equipment.'' Thus, the definition of ``other safety campaign'' 
currently reads in pertinent part: ``Other safety campaign means an 
action in which a manufacturer communicates with owners and/or dealers 
in a foreign country with respect to conditions * * * that relate to 
safety (excluding promotional and marketing materials, customer 
satisfaction surveys, and operating instructions or owner's manuals 
that accompany the vehicle or child restraint system at the time of 
first sale; or advice or direction to a dealer or distributor to cease 
the delivery or sale of specified models of vehicles or equipment).'' 
To correct this inconsistency, we proposed that the closed parenthesis 
in the definition of ``other safety campaign'' should be moved to 
immediately after the term ``of first sale'' to be consistent with the 
definition of ``customer satisfaction campaign.'' We did not receive 
any comments opposing the proposed change. Accordingly, the amendment 
to the definition of ``other safety campaign'' is adopted as proposed.

K. Lead Time

    NHTSA proposed a one (1) calendar year lead time for manufacturers 
to adopt to the proposed changes to the EWR regulation. The amendments 
proposed requiring sufficient lead time included requiring quarterly 
EWR reports from all bus manufacturers, consistent product naming, 
reporting light vehicle types, reporting additional light vehicle 
components and requiring fuel and/or propulsion identification. For the 
amendments proposing to raise the EWR reporting thresholds for light 
vehicles and trailers, we proposed 30 day effective dates.
    We received comments from the Alliance, AIAM and TTMA, on our 
proposed lead time, but those comments were, in large part, responsive 
to the proposals that would require manufacturers to change their IT 
systems and the EWR templates for reporting. Those proposals are not 
being adopted in today's final rule. Other than TTMA, which agreed with 
our proposed lead times, we did not receive any comments on our 
proposed lead time for amendments to the EWR reporting thresholds.
    Because bus manufacturers will need time to install systems or 
modify existing systems to meet the amendments adopted in this final 
rule, the effective date of the reporting requirement for bus 
manufacturers producing 100 or more buses per year but not currently 
required to report comprehensive data will be one year from today's 
date. Accordingly, for these bus manufacturers, the first quarterly EWR 
reports that must be filed are for the quarter in which this 
requirement becomes effective. For all other amendments adopted by 
today's final rule, the effective date will be 30 days from today's 
date.

[[Page 47753]]

 L. Amendments to Information Required To Be Submitted in a Part 573 
Defect or Noncompliance Information Report

    Under the Safety Act, manufacturers must notify the agency if 
either the manufacturer decides or the agency determines that a safety-
related defect or noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard exists in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. 
See 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119. NHTSA has significant discretion to 
specify the contents of this notice. 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). NHTSA's 
regulation governing content of defect or noncompliance notices 
submitted to NHTSA is located at 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Among other things, Part 573 
delineates the information to be contained in the notification to NHTSA 
in section 573.6.
    The December 2008 NPRM identified two additional types of 
information that, if provided in a Part 573 Defect or Noncompliance 
Information Report, would further assist the agency and the public to 
identify vehicle components or motor vehicle equipment involved in a 
recall. One proposal would amend subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require 
that tire manufacturers submit a list of unique Tire Identification 
Numbers (TINs) or a range of TINs corresponding to recalled tires. The 
NPRM also proposed amending 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to require manufacturers to 
identify the country of origin of a recalled component. To implement 
the proposed amendment for TIN data, we proposed changing section 573.9 
to allow TINs to be submitted as an attachment to an e-mail or by 
upload to NHTSA's ARTEMIS database. These are discussed in more detail 
below.
1. Amendment to Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii)
    Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) requires the manufacturer of a 
defective item of motor vehicle equipment to identify the item 
containing the defect and give other identifying information. 
Specifically, subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iii) requires manufacturers to 
identify the equipment by the generic name of the component (tires, 
child seating systems, axles, etc.), part number, size and function if 
applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacture if 
available and any other information necessary to describe the items.
    In tire recalls, tire manufacturers generally provide the brand 
name, model name, size of the recalled tire, and the applicable build 
dates. Build dates provide limited assistance to consumers seeking to 
determine if a tire is subject to a recall because there is no ``build 
date'' on a tire. Rather, the tire build date (actually, the week in 
which a tire was made) is encoded within the Tire Identification Number 
(TIN) molded on the tire sidewall. Accordingly, we proposed amending 49 
CFR 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to require tire manufacturers to submit a list of 
all unique TINs for defective tires. If providing all unique TINs would 
prove too costly, we proposed that tire manufacturers could provide a 
range of TINs.
    Two commenters addressed this proposal. RMA and Safety Research & 
Strategies, Inc. (SRS) expressed support for requiring manufacturers to 
identify the TINs, or range of TINs, in Part 573 reports. RMA noted 
that requiring manufacturers to provide a complete listing of TINs and/
or a range of TINs in 573 reports is not a significant burden and that 
many manufacturers already do so. We confirmed RMA's statement. Many 
tire manufacturers do provide the range of TINs for recalled tires in 
their Part 573 reports. RMA requested that NHTSA allow manufacturers 
the flexibility to provide TIN information as either a complete list or 
a range, depending on the nature of the recall at hand.
    We have considered the comments and are adopting the requirement 
that TIN information be provided in the 573 report for a tire recall. 
We have also decided to require that manufacturers provide this 
information as a range. A range of TINs will be easier for the agency 
to process and integrate into its data systems and offers fewer 
opportunities for errors.
2. Amendment to Section 49 CFR 573.9
    In order to facilitate the submission of TINs with a manufacturer's 
Part 573 Report, we proposed amending section 573.9 to provide for the 
submission of unique TINs in an electronic format that can be e-mailed 
or submitted through the Internet. Because today's final rule requires 
a range of TINs, we have decided against amending section 573.9. Our 
proposal amending section 573.9 would have facilitated the submission 
of unique TINs, which could consist of many thousands of individual 
TINs, depending on the size of the tire recall. Providing a range of 
TINs does not present the same challenges as submitting or processing a 
large database of unique TINs. A range can be submitted within a Part 
573 Report. Accordingly, we have decided not to adopt the proposal 
amending section 573.9.
3. Amendments to Subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv)
    NHTSA also proposed amending subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv). That 
subsection concerns the identification of the manufacturer that 
supplies the defective or noncompliant component to the manufacturer 
reporting the defect to NHTSA. It requires the reporting manufacturer 
to identify the component and the manufacturer of the component by 
name, address and telephone number. 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2)(iv). If the 
reporting manufacturer does not know the identity of the manufacturer 
of the component, it must identify the entity from which it was 
obtained. Id.
    Increasing globalization of the motor vehicle industry has made 
identifying the country of origin of recalled components more 
difficult. Information provided in a Part 573 Report may only identify 
a distributor's location and not reveal the location of manufacture. It 
is important for the agency to know where a recalled component is 
fabricated or assembled so NHTSA can monitor imported products.
    Therefore, we proposed amending subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to 
require reporting manufacturers to provide a non-compliant or defective 
component's country of origin. The country of origin for this purpose 
is where assembly or manufacture is completed. Accordingly, we proposed 
amending subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to add the phrase ``and its country 
of origin (i.e., final place of manufacture or assembly)'' immediately 
following ``shall identify the component.''
    We received several comments on this proposal. TTMA objected to the 
proposal as overly burdensome. The organization states that motor 
vehicles are comprised of hundreds of parts from many vendors that may 
reside in the U.S., but whose manufacturing facilities may be overseas. 
It notes that a reporting manufacturer may not be aware a component was 
imported. TTMA added that a recalling manufacturer is responsible for 
corrective action and a part's country of origin is irrelevant.
    NHTSA does not agree with the TTMA's assessment. While some motor 
vehicles are comprised of parts supplied by many different vendors with 
overseas and domestic production facilities, a vehicle manufacturer can 
discern, or should, in the agency's view, be able to discern, where the 
component was completed. It is not unreasonable for vehicle 
manufacturers to know and then report where the components of their 
products are made. A vehicle manufacturer's responsibility for taking

[[Page 47754]]

corrective action for the defect or noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 
30102(b)(1)(F), (G)) does not limit the manufacturer's reporting 
obligation. As indicated in the NPRM, the agency is using this 
information to better understand the origin of defective and 
noncompliant components, so we can appropriately focus enforcement 
efforts.
    Both the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and the 
Alliance commented that they did not have objections to the country of 
origin requirement. Both trade associations, however, commented they 
were concerned that manufacturers may not be able to meet the short 
timeframe for submitting that information. The NPRM proposed adding the 
country of origin requirement to subsection 573.6(c)(2)(iv) since, at 
present, that subsection requires manufacturers to supply the name and 
address of the component's manufacturer where the recall concerns a 
defective or noncompliant component produced by another manufacturer. 
Subsection (c)(2), however, requires information to be provided when a 
defect or noncompliance report is first filed. See 49 CFR 573.6(b). 
Defect and noncompliance reports must be filed within five (5) working 
days after a manufacturer a defect or noncompliance determination. Id.
    MEMA suggested that the requirement be revised to indicate that 
country of origin information must be provided ``if available'' at the 
time the initial report is filed. It further suggested that if the 
information is not available at the time of first filing, manufacturers 
should be allowed to provide that information in a supplemental 573 
report. Id.
    The Alliance asked that manufacturers have the option to indicate 
the country of origin is unknown when the 573 report is filed. It noted 
that this is similar to a clause in 573.6(c)(2)(iv) permitting 
manufacturers that do not know the identity of the manufacturer of a 
recalled component to identify the vendor of the component instead. 
However, the Alliance's proposal would not require manufacturers to 
ultimately identify the country of origin.
    We are modifying the proposal such that manufacturers do not need 
to submit the country of origin in their initial Part 573 Reports, but 
must supplement their Part 573 Reports once they obtain country of 
origin information. Manufacturers may need more than five (5) working 
days to ascertain the country of origin of a component. Nonetheless, 
manufacturers need to undertake all reasonable efforts to obtain this 
information and provide it to the agency in an expeditious manner. We 
are rejecting the Alliance's suggested change to permit a manufacturer 
to indicate a lack of knowledge because we believe country of origin 
information to be important at identifying and getting to the source of 
the problem. We do not believe allowing manufacturers to simply 
indicate their lack of knowledge regarding country of origin--without 
any expectation that they do anything further--will be useful.
    Accordingly, we are amending 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to require 
reporting manufacturers to identify a recalled component's country of 
origin (i.e., final place of manufacture or assembly), and the 
manufacturer and/or assembler of the component by name, business 
address, and business telephone number. If the reporting manufacturer 
does not know the country of origin of the component, it must provide 
that information once it becomes available.

V. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993) provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines as ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    NHTSA has considered the impacts of the rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered significant. 
Therefore, this document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed 
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small 
governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to 
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 
rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Today's EWR amendments affect 314 manufacturers (32 light vehicle 
manufacturers, 219 trailer manufacturers, 11 motorcycle manufacturers, 
37 medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers and 15 bus manufacturers). The 
rule would relieve reporting burdens currently imposed on some light 
vehicle, medium-heavy vehicle, motorcycle and trailer manufacturers and 
impose modest new burdens on the bus manufacturers. In order to 
determine if any of these manufacturers are small entities under the 
RFA, NHTSA reviewed the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) codes. Under those criteria, manufacturers of light vehicles, 
medium and heavy trucks, buses, or motor vehicle bodies are classified 
as a small business if they have fewer than 1,000 employees. For 
trailer and motorcycle manufacturers, the company must have fewer than 
500 employees to be considered a small business. All employees from the 
parent company and its subsidiaries are considered when determining the 
number of employees.
    Based on our application of these criteria (for details of our 
analysis, see our Final Regulatory Evaluation in the docket of this 
rulemaking), NHTSA has concluded that the majority of the light vehicle 
manufacturers and almost all of the 219 trailer manufacturers that 
would be relieved of quarterly reports by this rule (except for 
instances of fatalities) are small businesses. In addition, we believe 
that the majority of the 11 motorcycle and 37 medium-heavy vehicle 
manufacturers are small businesses.

[[Page 47755]]

    For the bus category, 20 bus manufacturers currently submit 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. We estimate that an additional 15 bus 
manufacturers will be required to submit quarterly EWR reports under 
today's final rule. Based on our review of publicly available 
information, we estimate that 10 of those 15 bus manufacturers are 
small businesses having fewer than 1,000 employees. In our view, 10 
small businesses out of a total of 15 entities (66.7 percent) 
constitute a substantial number.
    To determine whether the final rule would have a significant 
economic impact on the small bus companies, we look at our estimated 
cost of the proposal (an annual reporting cost of $16,256 per average 
company and a one time start-up cost of $3,500 per company) and compare 
that to the revenues of the company (which would include the parent 
company and its subsidiaries). The smallest bus company that is not a 
subsidiary of a larger company appears to be Ebus, Inc., with 45 
employees. Ebus, Inc. reportedly has sales revenues of approximately 
$600,000. The cost of this rulemaking per company divided by Ebus, Inc. 
revenue is approximately 2.7 percent, which the agency does not 
consider to be a significant economic impact.
    For the light vehicle, medium-heavy vehicle, motorcycle and trailer 
manufacturers affected by this final rule, we estimate a cost savings. 
Even though we do not have revenue estimates for these manufacturers, 
these cost savings are not economically significant.
    The defect and noncompliance amendments to Part 573 are also not 
anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small businesses. The changes to the tire reporting 
requirements of the tire identification number affect tire 
manufacturers. We are unaware of any tire manufacturers that are 
considered small businesses. Even if there were small tire 
manufacturers, the cost per recall of reporting the range of TINs of 
$1,126 would not have a significant economic impact on them. The 
country of origin requirements potentially affect small businesses, 
however, the annual economic impact to determine the country of origin 
of its product in question is small and the impact on any one business 
is also small. Of the average 650 motor vehicle safety recalls per 
year, we estimate that the company will need to investigate the country 
of origin of its products in 10 percent of the recalls. Out of the 65 
recalls affected per year, only a few would be conducted by small 
businesses, and at an estimated cost of $590 each, the economic impact 
is not significant.
    In sum, while today's EWR amendments affect a substantial number of 
small businesses (potentially 32 light vehicle manufacturers, 37 
medium/heavy vehicle manufacturers, 10 bus manufacturers, 219 trailer 
manufacturers and 11 motorcycle manufacturers), the agency believes 
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
those entities. In addition, the amendments to Part 573 will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses. Accordingly, I certify that this final rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of ``regulatory policies that 
have federalism implications.'' The Executive Order defines this phrase 
to include regulations ``that have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' The agency has analyzed this final rule 
in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive 
Order 13132 and has determined that it will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local 
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 
The changes adopted in this document only affect a rule that regulates 
the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which 
does not have substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million 
annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). 
Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price 
deflator for the year 2007 results in $130 million (119.682 / 92.106 = 
1.30). This final rule would not result in expenditures by State, local 
or tribal governments of more than $130 million annually. The final 
rule would result in an annual savings of approximately $4.45 million. 
The Final Rule promulgating the EWR regulation did not have unfunded 
mandates implications. 67 FR 49263 (July 30, 2002).

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' \18\ 
the agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any 
retroactive effect. We conclude that it would not have a retroactive or 
preemptive effect, and judicial review of it may be obtained pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for 
reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. The collection of information associated with Part 579 
is titled ``Reporting of Information and Documents About Potential 
Defects'' and has been assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0616. At 
present, OMB is reviewing NHTSA's request for an extension of approval 
to collect this information. Based on Part 579 as presently written, 
NHTSA has estimated that the collection of information will result in 
2,355 responses, with a total of 82,391 burden hours on affected 
manufacturers.
    Today's final rule will reduce the reporting burden on 
manufacturers associated with Part 579. NHTSA believes that the changes 
adopted by today's final rule will result in a reduction of 34,570 
burden hours on those reporting. The reduction in burden hours was 
calculated by separating the type of reports that manufacturers are 
required to submit under EWR into two groups, A and B. Regardless of 
industry type, Group A reports include reports that all manufacturers 
are required to submit under EWR, if they meet the specific industry 
reporting threshold. Group B reports are reports that not all 
manufacturers are required to submit even if they meet the specific 
industry threshold. Our calculation follows:

[[Page 47756]]

Group A Reports

                                                   [In hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    At present                        Change
                                                                     (hours)       NPRM  (hours)      (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims and notices of injury/fatality..........................            508.9          507.98           -0.92
Property damage................................................           1200.6         1195.1            -5.5
Field reports..................................................         12,691.5       12,637.83          -53.67
Foreign Death claims...........................................             18             17.75            0.25
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
    Total change...............................................  ...............  ..............          -60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bus Manufacturers--NHTSA estimates that bus manufacturers will file 
one additional claim and notice of injury/fatality reports a year, 
which will require 5 minutes to process. The agency estimates there 
will be no additional reports on property damage. Furthermore, an 
estimated 8 additional manufacturer field reports will be filed, for a 
total of 40 minutes. We estimate there will be no additional foreign 
death claim reports. NHTSA estimates there will be an additional 9 
reports or 0.75 burden hours on bus manufacturers.
    In sum, for Group A reports, NHTSA estimates that today's final 
rule results in a total reduction of 59.25 burden hours a year (0.75 
additional burden hours minus 60 hours of reduced burden on 
manufacturers).

Group B Reports

    Group B reports consist of warranty claims, consumer complaints, 
and dealer field reports. Under the final rule, the number of 
manufacturers reporting on light vehicles will be reduced from 62 to 30 
(a reduction of 32 manufacturers), which results in 678.9 less burden 
hours. The number of bus manufacturers reporting will increase from 20 
to 35 (an addition of 15 manufacturers), which results in an increase 
of 198.9 burden hours. The number of trailer manufacturers will 
decrease from 280 to 61 (a reduction of 219 trailer manufacturers), 
which results in 580.8 fewer burden hours. The number of motorcycle 
manufacturers will decrease from 23 to 12 (a reduction of 11 motorcycle 
manufacturers), which results in 58.4 fewer burden hours. In addition, 
the number of medium/heavy vehicle manufacturers will be reduced from 
66 to 29 (a reduction of 37 manufacturers), which results in 490.7 
fewer burden hours.
    Thus, NHTSA estimates there will be a reduction of 1,609 burden 
hours on vehicle manufacturers for Group B reports.

Computer Maintenance Burden Hours

    In addition to processing time, several industry types will see a 
reduction in their computer maintenance burden. As a result of the 
amendments adopted in today's final rule, 30 fewer light vehicle 
manufacturers will report quarterly EWR reports, which results in 
11,104 fewer computer maintenance burden hours (32 x 347 burden hours 
per manufacturer). In addition, there will be 37 fewer medium/heavy 
vehicle manufacturers reporting, resulting in 3,200.5 fewer computer 
maintenance burden hours (37 x 86.5 burden hours per manufacturers). 
Further reductions will be seen in the motorcycle industry. There will 
be 11 fewer motorcycle manufacturers reporting, resulting in 951.5 
fewer computer maintenance burden hours (11 x 86.5 burden hours per 
manufacturer). Also, there will be 219 fewer trailer manufacturers 
reporting, which results in 18,943.5 fewer computer maintenance burden 
hours (219 x 86.5 burden hours per manufacturer). There will be 15 more 
bus manufacturers submitting quarterly EWR reports, or 15 x 86.52 
burden hours per manufacturer, for a total increase of +1,297.8 more 
burden hours on bus manufacturers. Thus, under today's final rule, 
there will be an overall reduction of 32,902 burden hours on industry 
resulting from computer maintenance.

   Total Burden Hours on Industry for EWR Amendments in the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Burden hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A Reports.........................................             -59
Group B Reports.........................................          -1,609
Computer Maintenance Reports............................         -32,902
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................         -34,570
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, NHTSA believes industry will incur 34,570 
fewer burden hours a year in EWR reporting to NHTSA.
    Part 573's information collection is assigned OMB Control Number 
2127-0004, and was recently approved on October 9, 2008. At the time of 
approval, NHTSA estimated the requirements of Part 573 necessitate 
21,370 burden hours per year.
    The revisions to Part 573 as a result of this final rule do not 
change the scope of those manufacturers' obligation to notify NHTSA of 
a defect or noncompliance. Also, the new requirement to provide a TIN 
range for tire recalls does not affect the burden hours associated with 
Part 573's information collection.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As noted in the preamble, many tire manufacturers provide 
the range of TINs for recalled tires in their Part 573 reports. The 
requirement of providing a TIN range for recalled tires will not 
increase the burden hours for the collection because, whether they 
reported it or not in the past, manufacturers must determine a TIN 
range in order to identify the recall population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new component country of origin requirement added to Part 573, 
however, may potentially have a slight impact on the burden hours 
associated with Part 573's information collection. Under the current 
information collection, we estimate that 650 recalls, on average, are 
processed a year. We estimate that possibly ten percent of the recalls 
processed each year will require the reporting manufacturer to obtain 
the country of origin. Accordingly, we calculate that the new component 
country of origin requirement may result in an additional 33 (rounded 
up from 32.5) burden hours (650 recalls x 10 percent / 2).
    In summary, this rulemaking reduces the burden on industry by over 
34,000 burden hours.

G. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) 
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason 
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by us.

[[Page 47757]]

    Today's final rule is not economically significant.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in or about April and October of each 
year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of 
this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. In the NPRM, we requested comment regarding our 
application of the principles of plain language in the proposal. We did 
not receive any comments on this issue.

J. Data Quality Act

    Section 515 of the FY 2001 Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-554, section 515, codified at 44 U.S.C. 
3516 historical and statutory note), commonly referred to as the Data 
Quality Act, directed OMB to establish government-wide standards in the 
form of guidelines designed to maximize the ``quality,'' 
``objectivity,'' ``utility,'' and ``integrity'' of information that 
Federal agencies disseminate to the public. As noted in the EWR final 
rule (67 FR 45822), NHTSA has reviewed its data collection, generation, 
and dissemination processes in order to ensure that agency information 
meets the standards articulated in the OMB and DOT guidelines. The 
changes adopted by today's final rule would alleviate some of the 
burden for manufacturers to provide EWR reports by reducing the 
reporting requirement on light vehicle manufacturers and trailer 
manufacturers. Where the final rule is requiring additional reporting 
by manufacturers, the new requirement will serve to improve the quality 
of the data NHTSA receives under the EWR rule, enabling the agency to 
be more efficient and productive in proactively searching for potential 
safety concerns as mandated through the TREAD Act.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 573 and 
579 as set forth below:

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-30121, 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.


0
2. Amend Sec.  573.6 by revising paragraphs (c) (2) (iii) and (iv) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  573.6  Defect and noncompliance information report.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) In the case of items of motor vehicle equipment, the 
identification shall be by the generic name of the component (tires, 
child seating systems, axles, etc.), part number (for tires, a range of 
tire identification numbers, as required by 49 CFR 574.5), size and 
function if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of 
manufacture if available and any other information necessary to 
describe the items.
    (iv) In the case of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle 
equipment in which the component that contains the defect or 
noncompliance was manufactured by a different manufacturer from the 
reporting manufacturer, the reporting manufacturer shall identify the 
component and, if known, the component's country of origin (i.e. final 
place of manufacture or assembly), the manufacturer and/or assembler of 
the component by name, business address, and business telephone number. 
If the reporting manufacturer does not know the identity of the 
manufacturer of the component, it shall identify the entity from which 
it was obtained. If at the time of submission of the initial report, 
the reporting manufacturer does not know the country of origin of the 
component, the manufacturer shall ascertain the country of origin and 
submit a supplemental report with that information once it becomes 
available.
* * * * *

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

0
3. The authority citation for part 579 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

Subpart A--General


0
4. Amend Sec.  579.4 by revising the definition of ``Other safety 
campaign'' in paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  579.4  Terminology.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
* * * * *
    Other safety campaign means an action in which a manufacturer 
communicates with owners and/or dealers in a foreign country with 
respect to conditions under which motor vehicles or equipment should be 
operated, repaired, or replaced that relate to safety (excluding 
promotional and marketing materials, customer satisfaction surveys, and 
operating instructions or owner's manuals that accompany the vehicle or 
child restraint system at the time of first sale); or advice or 
direction to a dealer or distributor to cease the delivery or sale of 
specified models of vehicles or equipment.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Reporting of Early Warning Information

0
5. Amend Sec.  579.21 by revising the section heading and by revising 
the first sentence of the introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  579.21  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5,000 or more 
light vehicles annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
light vehicles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 
introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or 
imported into the United States, during the calendar year of the 
reporting period or during each of the prior two calendar years is 
5,000 or more shall submit the information described in this section. * 
* *
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  579.22 by
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising the introductory text; and
0
c. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  579.22  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 100 or more 
buses, manufacturers of 500 or more emergency vehicles and 
manufacturers of 5,000 or more medium-heavy vehicles (other than buses 
and emergency vehicles) annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
buses manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or 
delivered for introduction in interstate commerce,

[[Page 47758]]

or imported into the United States, during the calendar year of the 
reporting period or during either of the prior two calendar years is 
100 or more shall submit the information described in this section. For 
each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
emergency vehicles (ambulances and fire trucks) manufactured for sale, 
sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in 
interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, during the 
calendar year of the reporting period or during either of the prior two 
calendar years is 500 or more shall submit the information described in 
this section. For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate 
number of medium-heavy vehicles (a sum that does not include buses or 
emergency vehicles) manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 
introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or 
imported into the United States, during the calendar year of the 
reporting period or during either of the prior two calendar years is 
5,000 or more shall submit the information described in this section. 
For paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, the manufacturer shall 
submit information separately with respect to each make, model, and 
model year of bus, emergency vehicle and/or medium-heavy vehicle 
manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior 
to the earliest model year in the reporting period, including models no 
longer in production.
* * * * *
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
buses, emergency vehicles and medium heavy vehicles manufactured during 
a model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model years 
prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period:
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  579.23 by revising the section heading and by revising 
the first sentence of the introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  579.23  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5,000 or more 
motorcycles annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
motorcycles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced 
or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into 
the United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period or 
during either of the prior two calendar years is 5,000 or more shall 
submit the information described in this section. * * *
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  579.24 by revising the section heading and by revising 
the first sentence of the introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  579.24  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5,000 or more 
trailers annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
trailers manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or 
delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the 
United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period or 
during either of the prior two calendar years is 5,000 or more shall 
submit the information described in this section. * * *
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  579.27 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  579.27  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of fewer than 
100 buses annually, for manufacturers of fewer than 500 emergency 
vehicles annually, for manufacturers of fewer than 5,000 light 
vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles (other than buses and emergency 
vehicles), motorcycles or trailers annually, for manufacturers of 
original equipment, and for manufacturers of replacement equipment 
other than child restraint systems and tires.

* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  579.29 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  579.29  Manner of reporting.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For each report required under paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
Sec. Sec.  579.21 through 579.26 of this part and submitted in the 
manner provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a manufacturer 
must state the make, model and model year of each motor vehicle or item 
of motor vehicle equipment in terms that are identical to the statement 
of the make, model, model year of each motor vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle equipment provided in the manufacturer's previous report.
* * * * *

    Issued on: September 11, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-22365 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P