[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43670-43679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA--2012-0068; Notice 6]
RIN 2127-AK72


Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor 
Vehicle and Equipment Recall Regulations

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

ACTION: Final rule; responses to petitions for reconsideration; 
technical corrections.

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

SUMMARY: This responds to three (3) petitions for reconsideration to 
NHTSA's August 20, 2013 final rule adopting amendments to certain 
provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) rule and regulations 
governing motor vehicle and equipment safety recalls. NHTSA received 
three (3) petitions for reconsideration that contained requests to 
alter or withdraw several adopted amendments. In addition, this 
document makes minor technical corrections to ensure all recall 
communications are received through NHTSA's online recalls portal and 
that

[[Page 43671]]

all owner notification letters are sent to owners at the time the 
remedy is available.

DATES: The effective date for the amendment to 49 CFR 573.15, which 
requires larger vehicle manufacturers to supply Vehicle Identification 
Number (VIN) information electronically on their Web sites and transmit 
those VINs to NHTSA's servers is August 20, 2014. The effective date 
for the amendments to 49 CFR 573.9, which requires all manufacturers to 
manage their safety recalls through a new online recalls portal, is 
also August 20, 2014.
    The effective date of the adopted amendments to the EWR regulation 
in 49 CFR 579.21 and 579.22 is January 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues concerning safety 
recall provisions, contact Jennifer Timian, Chief, Recall Management 
Division, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-0209, email [email protected]. 
For non-legal issues concerning early warning provisions, contact Leo 
Yon, Safety Defects Engineer, Early Warning Reporting Division, NHTSA, 
telephone 202-366-7028, email [email protected]. For legal issues, 
contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone 
202-366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Amendments Made to the Early Warning Rule and Foreign Defect 
Reporting
    1. Vehicle Type and Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
    2. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency 
Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    B. Amendments Made to Safety Recalls Reporting, Administration, 
and Execution
II. Petitions for Reconsideration Summary and Agency Response
    A. Petitions Regarding the Early Warning Rule
    1. Petitions for Reconsideration of the Effective Date for EWR 
Reporting
    2. Petition for Reconsideration To Use the Attribution ``UN'' 
for Reporting Vehicle Type and Fuel/Propulsion Type Is Unknown
    B. Petitions Regarding Public Availability of Motor Vehicles 
Recall Information
    1. Recall Completion Search Criteria
    2. Requirement To Report the Part 573 Date
    3. Requirement To Report the Defect or Noncompliance Description 
and Statement of Risk
    4. Requirement To Report the Date of Available Recall 
Information
    5. Request for Modification of Effective Date for the 
Manufacturer VIN Look-up Tool and Interface With NHTSA
    6. Failures of Manufacturers To Provide VIN Look-up Services
    7. Timing of NHTSA's Workshops
    C. Petitions Related to Amendments to Part 573 and Part 577
    1. Requirement for Recall Notification Envelope Label
    2. Requirement To Utilize NHTSA's Online Recalls Portal
    3. Requirement To Notify Owners within 60 Days
III. Technical Corrections
    A. Technical Correction for Submitting Recall Communications
    B. Technical Correction for Quarterly Reporting
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

A. Amendments to the Early Warning Rule and Foreign Defect Reporting

    On August 20, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule amending certain 
provisions of the EWR regulations at 49 CFR Part 579 Subpart C 
``Reporting of Early Warning Information.'' 78 FR 51382. In summary, 
the new provisions:
     Require light vehicle manufacturers to specify the vehicle 
type and the fuel and/or propulsion system type in their quarterly EWR 
reports.
     Add new component categories for reporting on light 
vehicles: Electronic stability control, forward collision avoidance, 
lane departure prevention, and backover prevention, foundation brakes, 
and automatic brake controls.
     Add one new component category for buses, emergency 
vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers: Electronic stability 
control/roll stability control.
     Require motor vehicle manufacturers to report their annual 
substantially similar vehicle list (SSVL) via the Internet.
    The final rule stated that these new provisions will be effective 
August 20, 2014.
1. Vehicle Type and Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers producing 
5,000 or more vehicles annually to submit production information 
including the make, the model, the model year, the type, the platform 
and the number of vehicles produced. 49 CFR 579.21(a). Manufacturers 
must provide the production as a cumulative total for the model year, 
unless production of the product has ceased. Id. While light vehicle 
manufacturers are required to provide the type of vehicle with their 
production, they are not required to provide the type of vehicle when 
they submit death and injury data pursuant to 49 CFR 579.21(b) or with 
aggregate data under 49 CFR 579.21(c). The final rule amended Sec.  
579.21(b) and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to provide the 
type of vehicle when they submit their death and injury data and 
aggregate data under those sections and amended the light vehicle 
reporting templates for the EWR death and injury and aggregate reports 
to reflect adding vehicle type.
    In addition, the final rule amended the EWR regulation to add a 
requirement that light vehicle manufacturers identify the specific fuel 
or propulsion system used in their vehicles. 78 FR 51382, 51424-55. The 
new fuel and/or propulsion system types required to be reported under 
the final rule are: Compressed natural gas (CNG); compression ignition 
fuel (CIF); electric battery power (EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid 
electric vehicle (HEV); hydrogen combustion power (HCP); plug-in hybrid 
(PHV); spark ignition fuel (SIF); and other (OTH).
2. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency 
Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    The EWR regulation requires light and medium-heavy vehicle 
manufacturers to report the required information by specific component 
categories. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c), (d) and 579.22(b), (c), (d). The 
final rule amended the EWR regulation to add component categories for 
Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Roll Stability Control (RSC), 
Forward Collision Avoidance (FCA), Lane Departure Prevention (LDP), and 
Backover Prevention technologies. NHTSA added component codes for ESC, 
FCA, LDP and Backover Prevention to the EWR reporting for light 
vehicles and ESC/RSC for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium and 
heavy vehicles. 78 FR 51382, 51424-55. The agency also amended the EWR 
rule to add definitions for these components. 78 FR 51382, 51423-24. 
The final rule also divided the current ``service brake system'' 
category for light vehicles into two new categories: ``foundation 
braking systems and ``automatic brake controls'' and provided 
definitions for those new categories. Id.

B. Amendments to Safety Recalls Reporting, Administration, and 
Execution

    The August 20, 2013 final rule implemented a number of measures in 
our effort to improve the information the agency receives from 
recalling manufacturers concerning the products they are recalling and 
the plans for remedying those products, in addition to our distribution 
of that information to the affected public.
    We added certain items of information in a manufacturer's Part 573 
Information Report. These additional

[[Page 43672]]

items include: An identification and description of the risk associated 
with the safety defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS, and, as to motor 
vehicle equipment recalls, the brand name, model name, and model 
number, of the equipment recalled. 78 FR 51382, 51421.
    Pursuant to Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141), the final 
rule added a requirement that motor vehicle manufacturers that 
manufacture 25,000 or more light vehicles annually, or 5,000 or more 
motorcycles annually provide a VIN-based safety recalls search 
mechanism available to the public on the Internet. Id. The final rule 
required a conspicuous link to the manufacturer's safety recalls search 
mechanism on the main page of the manufacturer's United States' Web 
page. Specifically, the safety recalls search function must: (1) Be 
available to the public on the Internet; (2) be searchable by vehicle 
make and model and VIN; (3) be in a format that preserves consumer 
privacy; and (4) includes information about each recall that has not 
been completed for each vehicle. It must also meet the requirements of 
new section 49 CFR 573.15.
    In addition to certain light vehicle manufacturers hosting a safety 
recalls search function on their Web sites (or through redirects from 
those Web sites to a third party's Web site), the agency will offer a 
similar function to the public through its Web site, www.safercar.gov. 
In order for NHTSA to offer the public a safety recalls search function 
specific to VINs, manufacturers must allow secure electronic transfer 
of manufacturer recall data, for one VIN at a time, to NHTSA's public 
web server(s). As part of the final rule, NHTSA required the secure 
electronic transfer of the recall information and data required to be 
made publicly available by this section through a specific Application 
Programming Interface (API). See 78 FR 51382, 51422.
    The final rule requires manufacturers to submit, through a secure, 
agency-owned and managed web-based interface or portal, 
www.safercar.gov, required Part 573 Information Reports and other 
recall-related reports, information, and associated documents. 78 FR 
51382, 51421. In addition, manufacturers must supply new or missing 
Part 573.6 (b) Report Information within five working days of when the 
accuracy of the information has been confirmed. Id.
    The final rule also amended certain provisions related to the 
notification letter manufacturers must send to owners and purchasers, 
under 49 CFR part 577, following the determination of the existence of 
a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS. Pursuant to 
these amendments, the owner notification letters: (1) Must be sent 
within 60 days of the manufacturer's safety defect or noncompliance 
notification to the agency; (2) must include the phrase ``IMPORTANT 
SAFETY RECALL'' in all capital letters and in an enlarged font at the 
top of those letters; and (3) include the statements ``This notice 
applies to your vehicle (including the specific VIN)'' and then 
followed by an opening statement: ``This notice is sent to you in 
accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.''
    The final rule also required a specific label on the outside of the 
envelope forwarded to the owner or purchaser. See 78 FR 51422. The 
agency identified the label and provided a link to where the label was 
available for manufacturer use only.
    Lastly, the final rule required that manufacturers notify the 
agency in the event they file for bankruptcy. Id. We required this so 
we can better preserve our ability to consider and take those measures 
necessary to protect options for ensuring recalling manufacturers 
continue to honor obligations to provide free remedies to owners of 
unsafe vehicle and equipment products.
    For further information and a thorough discussion of these 
amendments, the reader is referred to the final rule, 78 FR 51382, and 
the prior notice of proposed rulemaking 77 FR 55606, September 10, 
2012.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration Summary and Agency Response

    We received petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) \1\, the Association of Global 
Automakers (Global) \2\, and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS). We 
address the requests for reconsideration pertaining to the EWR rule 
first. Thereafter, we address the reconsideration requests related to 
amendments to the safety recall provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Members are: BMW group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor 
Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-
Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo 
Cars.
    \2\ Members are: Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, 
Kia, Maserati, McLaren, Nissan, Peugeot, Subaru, Suzuki, and Toyota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Petitions Regarding the Early Warning Rule

    The Alliance and Global filed petitions for reconsideration of two 
amendments made to the EWR.
1. Petitions for Reconsideration of the Effective Date for EWR 
Reporting
    Both petitioners seek clarification for the effective date of the 
new EWR requirements. The EWR rule requires manufacturers to submit EWR 
reports for each calendar quarter of the year and requires, in general, 
that manufacturers submit their reports within 60 days of the end of 
the quarter. 49 CFR 579.28(b). The final rule provided for an effective 
date of August 20, 2014, which is within the middle of the third 
calendar quarter. The Alliance and Global commented that having an 
effective date in the middle of the third quarter creates confusion for 
manufacturers regarding the appropriate report to submit at the end of 
the third quarter, i.e., to use the pre-final rule templates and 
component codes or the amended templates and component codes. In 
subsequent conversations with the Alliance, it pointed out that its 
members would need several months of lead time to implement and test 
the new EWR templates to ensure that their reporting systems would 
capture the new component categories.
    The agency agrees that an effective date of August 20, 2014, 
creates confusion and does not provide clear instruction as to which 
template or component codes apply for third quarter reporting. We also 
agree that manufacturers need sufficient time to ensure that their 
amended EWR systems are capturing and reporting the information 
properly. The agency did not intend to begin using the new templates 
and component codes to report EWR data in the middle of the third 
quarter. Moreover, we do not want to create a situation where 
manufacturers have not completed their testing and implementation of 
their updated EWR reporting systems. Accordingly, we will amend the 
effective date to January 1, 2015, to clarify that manufacturers should 
use the new templates and component codes and minimize any undue burden 
to implement the amendments in a timely manner. Accordingly, these 
reports will be due no later than 60 days after the last day of the 
first quarter of 2015.
2. Petition for Reconsideration To Use the Attribution ``UN'' for 
Reporting Vehicle Type and Fuel/Propulsion Type Is Unknown
    The Alliance also petitioned the agency to amend the regulatory 
text in 579.21(b)(2) and (c) to permit manufacturers to specify that 
the vehicle type or specific fuel or propulsion system associated with 
a

[[Page 43673]]

specific claim or consumer complaint is unknown. The Alliance notes 
that while the preamble discussed the use of ``UN'' for unknown vehicle 
type the final rule did not add regulatory language addressing the use 
of the `UN' (sic) code in Sec.  579.21. The Alliance requests NHTSA 
amend the text of Sec.  579.21(b)(2) and (c) to specify the use of `UN' 
when the vehicle type and/or fuel/propulsion type is unknown.
    As noted in the preambles to the final rule and the NPRM, the 
agency contemplated using the designation ``UN'' for vehicle type when 
the VIN of the vehicle is unavailable to determine the vehicle's type. 
See 78 FR 51388 and 77 FR 55606, 55612, respectively. We recognize that 
there may be instances where a manufacturer receives a notice or claim 
of a death or injury, or receives a consumer complaint that meets 
minimum specificity \3\ to trigger reporting under EWR, but the VIN is 
not made available to the manufacturer. The make, model and model year 
are, therefore, available, but the manufacturer may not know whether 
the vehicle is two wheel drive or four wheel drive model to determine 
the appropriate type code. No commenter objected to the use of ``UN'' 
by manufacturers when the VIN is unavailable. In addition, in the 
preamble to the final rule, the agency responded to comments about how 
to report fuel and propulsion systems that are unknown by reporting 
``unknown.'' See 78 FR 51389. Although in both these instances the 
agency discussed in the preamble how to report incidents when vehicle 
type and fuel/propulsion systems are unknown, we omitted to make the 
necessary amendments to the regulatory text. Accordingly, we will amend 
the regulatory text to be consistent with our previously stated intent. 
For consistency with the attributes permitted under the rule for 
reporting vehicle type, we will use the two-letter attribute ``UN'' for 
unknown vehicle type. For consistency with the attributes allowed for 
fuel and/or propulsion type in the August 20, 2013 final rule, we will 
use the three-letter attribute ``UNK'' when the fuel and/or propulsion 
type is not known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Minimal specificity for a vehicle means the make, model, and 
model year. 49 CFR 579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Petitions Regarding Public Availability of Motor Vehicles Recall 
Information

    The Alliance, Global and CAS submitted petitions for 
reconsideration related to 49 CFR 573.15, Public Availability of Motor 
Vehicles Recall Information.
1. Recall Completion Search Criteria
    The Alliance commented that the newly added recall information 
look-up requirements contained in Sec.  573.15(b)(3) require 
manufacturers to offer recall search functionality by vehicle ``make 
and model,'' in addition to requiring the VIN. The Alliance noted that 
recall results applicable to a particular vehicle cannot be obtained by 
using only the vehicle's make and model information. Further, the 
Alliance stated that ``there is no way for a manufacturer to know 
whether a recall has been completed on a particular vehicle in the 
absence of the VIN.'' The Alliance requested that NHTSA verify that 
manufacturers must only offer recall results based on a specific VIN.
    We confirm that the manufacturers subject to the requirements of 
Sec.  573.15 need only to provide search utility based on a VIN. We 
concur that a search function based on only vehicle make and model is 
not typically sufficient to identify whether a recall applies to a 
particular vehicle within a make and model, since most recalls only 
address a portion of any particular make, model, and model year 
vehicle. In other words, it is rarely the case that a safety recall 
covers each and every vehicle manufactured within a particular make, 
model, and model year, and so any search function based on these 
minimal criteria is not capable of identifying whether a specific 
vehicle has an incomplete safety recall. The inability to identify a 
safety recall on a specific vehicle would not meet the intent behind 
MAP-21's requirement to provide recall information that has not been 
completed for each vehicle.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 31301(a) requires that motor vehicle safety recall 
information--(1) be available to the public on the Internet; (2) be 
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification 
number; (3) be in a format that preserves consumer privacy; and (4) 
includes information about each recall that has not been completed 
for each vehicle. Public Law 112-114; 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A VIN sequence, however, identifies not only the make, model, and 
model year of the vehicle, but a host of additional information 
specific to a vehicle that manufacturers use to keep a record of what 
technology, among other things, that the vehicle contains. In the event 
of a safety recall, manufacturers use this information to pinpoint the 
specific vehicles affected and to then notify the affected owners based 
on vehicle registration data. The make, model, and model year elements 
are incorporated within the VIN sequence, such that a search using 
those elements is redundant to the VIN level search required by the 
statute. MAP-21's requirement that uncompleted safety recall 
information be made publicly available online and searchable by vehicle 
make and model and VIN is met through the submission of a VIN. 
Accordingly, in the agency's view, incomplete recall information that 
is made publicly available and searchable by means of a VIN meets the 
statutory intent of MAP-21 and the regulatory requirements of Sec.  
573.15.
2. Requirement To Report the Part 573 Date
    The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to remove the requirement for 
manufacturers to provide the Part 573 report date with recall results 
in their VIN look-up tools. See 49 CFR 573.15(b)(8). The Alliance 
contends this requirement was never proposed in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) and the date is of minimal value to consumers. Also, 
the Alliance claims these dates are not typically found within a 
manufacturer's recall database. The Alliance requests that this 
requirement be deleted from Subsection (b)(8) of Sec.  573.15.
    We disagree that the Part 573 date is of minimal value to 
consumers. We believe the Part 573 date provides an important 
contextual reference to vehicle owners and prospective purchasers. This 
particular date is important as it marks the beginning of the safety 
recall process. NHTSA chose this particular date as it would inform an 
owner as to how long their vehicle has been subject to an important 
safety recall. We think it is reasonable that when advising consumers 
of an uncompleted safety recall that they also be made aware of how 
long the recall campaign has been open. It may provide consumers with 
added incentive to take the appropriate steps to have the vehicle 
remedied. While this data may or may not be located in a manufacturer's 
recall database, we understand it will require minimal effort to add 
these dates to a database, where needed.
    Also, NHTSA is willing to assist any manufacturer with a list of 
Part 573 report dates applicable to their past safety recalls, should a 
manufacturer not already have these dates recorded electronically. Part 
573 report dates, as well as other pertinent recall information, are 
located in an electronic database file found on NHTSA's safercar.gov 
Web site. This information is, therefore, accessible and a manufacturer 
may use it to supplement its own data files if incomplete.
    The agency's original proposal contemplated providing recall 
information to a consumer to determine if his or her vehicle is subject 
to a recall and whether a recall has been launched.

[[Page 43674]]

A subset of this information is the date the manufacturer submitted its 
notice to NHTSA. 77 FR 55619. We also stated in the preamble that any 
alternative manufacturer hosted Web site (as an alternative to NHTSA 
hosting a recall look-up tool) would need to post the same information 
as on NHTSA's Web site. 77 FR 55622. The preamble also noted that after 
reviewing comments the agency reserved the flexibility to develop and 
adopt the alternative approach to a NHTSA hosted recall look-up tool 
based upon logical outgrowths of the proposal and comments received. In 
our view, for the reasons stated above, this requirement is a logical 
outgrowth of our alternative proposal to require manufacturers to host 
VIN look-up tools on their own Web sites, subject to certain 
performance based criteria. Accordingly, we decline to accept the 
request to remove this requirement.
3. Requirement To Report the Defect or Noncompliance Description and 
Statement of Risk
    The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to change the regulatory text of 49 
CFR 573.15(b)(8) regarding a description of the safety defect or 
noncompliance, and the safety risk, in a manufacturer's VIN look-up 
tool. Specifically, the Alliance requested that the phrase 
``manufacturer's information report'' be modified to read 
``manufacturer's information report or owner notification letter.'' The 
group explained that the language used in a manufacturer's Part 573 
report is often technical in nature, as opposed to the more concise and 
plain language used in owner notification letters.
    The Alliance also petitioned that the same modification be made to 
the description of the safety risk that is also required by 49 CFR 
573.15(b)(8). Currently, paragraph (b)(8) requires manufacturers to 
provide a description of the risk to safety ``in the terms required by 
parts 573 and 577.'' A suggested change from the Alliance would have 
paragraph (b)(8) read, ``manufacturer's information report or owner 
notification letter.''
    Section 573.15(b)(8) requires manufacturers to provide ``a brief 
description of the safety defect or noncompliance identified in the 
manufacturer's information report filed pursuant to this Part,'' and to 
``describe the risk to safety consistent with the manufacturer's 
description given in the terms required by parts 573 and 577.'' 49 CFR 
573.15(b)(8). By using the language ``brief description,'' the agency 
intended to ensure that safety defect and noncompliance descriptions 
incorporated into each manufacturer's online search tool would be 
succinct and clear to the public. We agree, however, that it is common 
for Part 573 reports to contain more technical detail and use 
engineering and industry or trade terminology that may not be used or 
understood outside of the automotive industry.
    Accordingly, we will grant the Alliance's petition and amend the 
relevant text of Part 573.15(b)(8) to read, ``provide a brief 
description of the safety defect or noncompliance, including the risk 
to safety, identified in the manufacturer's information report or owner 
notification letter filed pursuant to this part.''
4. Requirement To Report the Date of Available Recall Information
    The Alliance requested clarification regarding the information 
required by 49 CFR 573.15(b)(10). Currently, Sec.  573.15(b)(10) 
requires a manufacturer's recall look-up tool to ``[s]tate the earliest 
date for which recall completion information is available, either on 
the search page or on the results page, and provide information for all 
owner notification campaigns after that date.'' By way of context and 
background, the preceding paragraph, (b)(9), requires each manufacturer 
to provide online search capability of at least 15 years' worth of 
recall completion data. See 49 CFR 573.15(b)(9). The purpose of 
paragraph (b)(10) is to inform online users of how far back the 
manufacturer's recall look-up tool reaches. For example, a manufacturer 
may choose to comply with the minimum time period specified in 
paragraph (b)(9) that provides for an online search capability for 
recalls dating back fifteen (15) years. In that case, under paragraph 
(b)(10), the manufacturer would inform the customer that the recall 
search tool provides recall data for the last 15 years and provide all 
incomplete safety recalls from that point forward for the specific 
vehicle. On the other hand, if a manufacturer's recall look-up tool 
reaches back 50 years, it would specify as much.
    Regardless of whether a particular manufacturer chooses to offer 15 
years or 50 years' worth of search capability, or somewhere in between, 
paragraph (b)(10) requires the manufacturer to inform users either on 
the search page where the VIN is entered or on the results page (or on 
both) of how far back its search engine will search. This is so a user 
can quickly and easily understand any time limitations with respect to 
the results they receive. For example, by informing a user of how far 
back the manufacturer's search engine will go, users of that 
manufacturer's VIN search tool will be informed that safety recalls of 
an older vintage (15 years or more, manufacturer-dependent) will not be 
detected by the search engine. They will have the information that will 
tell them not to rely on the search to produce a trustworthy response 
as to their vehicle, particularly if the vehicle is older or a vintage 
product. And, of course, a manufacturer could also advise to contact it 
or a local dealer for more complete information.
5. Request for Modification of Effective Date for the Manufacturer 
Recall Look-up Tool and Interface With NHTSA
    Pursuant to the final rule, certain large volume light vehicle and 
motorcycle manufacturers have until August 20, 2014, to provide 
publicly accessible vehicle safety recall completion information on 
their Web sites (or through redirects from those Web sites to a third 
party's Web site). They also have until August 20, 2014, to ensure, 
through adherence with technical specifications NHTSA sets, the secure 
electronic transfer of that recall completion information to NHTSA for 
its use in upgrading its current safety recalls search function housed 
on www.safercar.gov to allow for VIN-based searching. The Alliance and 
Global Automakers petitioned NHTSA to change the effective date of 
these requirements from August 20, 2014, to one year from the date the 
NHTSA establishes and shares with covered manufacturers the technical 
specification for the NHTSA-manufacturer safety recall completion 
information interface.
    In support of the petition for extension, the Alliance said that 
``some/many'' manufacturers do not have a web-based API that provides 
all the information that NHTSA would require. It said the interface 
will need to be designed and built, but cannot be designed and built 
until the requirements are available to the manufacturers. According to 
the Alliance, these interfaces could take up to nine (9) months to 
build and then three (3) months of testing might be required, and said 
this is a comparable period of time for testing that was performed for 
NHTSA's Artemis system.
    Global echoed a similar sentiment in their petition. That group 
said that some manufacturers, particularly the smaller ones, are likely 
to rely on third-party vendors to provide the VIN look-up tool 
required, and that they would need to develop the tool from the 
``ground up,'' rather than making minor modifications to a current 
system. Ground up

[[Page 43675]]

development will require significant time and money and, according to 
Global' s understanding, the third-party vendors that may be retained 
are not able to provide estimates of costs and time to those 
manufacturers without the technical specification from NHTSA.
    We have considered the Alliance's and Global's arguments, but do 
not believe a change in the effective date is necessary. First, as to 
the manufacturers' safety recall completion look-up tools to be placed 
on their respective Web sites (or links to a tool on a third party 
site), and that do not concern an exchange of information between NHTSA 
and the manufacturer, all performance requirements were set forth in 
the final rule. Manufacturers have time to build out their systems to 
meet the recall look-up tool's requirements. Neither the Alliance nor 
Global argues that the requirements are so vague or unlimited that 
their member companies are unable to comply or start building or 
modifying the tools. Moreover, neither presents any details as to why 
it would take manufacturers with existing recall look-up tools longer 
than the year provided by the agency. Also, by August 20, 2014, every 
manufacturer will have had up to one year that the Alliance said its 
members would need to comply.
    Turning to the requirements concerning the exchange of recall 
completion information with NHTSA, it is true that the agency did not 
publish the technical specification enumerating the specific, technical 
directions for a manufacturer to support and send completion 
information to our Web site at the time of the final rule. As we stated 
in the final rule, the agency would publish technical specifications 
after we published the final rule. Those specifications were published 
in December 2013. As noted above, however, we did enumerate each item 
of information a manufacturer would need to produce--whether on its Web 
site or to NHTSA. We also supplied more than sufficient technical 
detail as to how the transfer of information would need to occur so 
that a manufacturer (or its vendor) could reasonably initiate design 
and production of a system, even if from the ground up.
    In our view, the enumerated information in the final rule about the 
exchange of information between NHTSA and manufacturers laid the 
foundation for which manufacturers could begin working towards meeting 
the August 20, 2014 deadline. While technical information was not 
provided in the final rule, certain information was not critical for a 
manufacturer to begin the process and work towards the deadline. Much 
of this information is information that we could not produce publicly. 
For example, we did not provide the location of the uniform resource 
identifier (URI) where an exchange of information with a manufacturer 
would occur. Nor did we define the identification and key combinations 
that NHTSA and a particular manufacturer would use to authenticate 
systems and ensure secure transfer of information. We do not believe 
manufacturers require these sorts of administrative details that relate 
strictly to the mechanics of transfer and not to the substance of the 
information itself--which was defined in the August 2013 Final Rule--an 
entire year in advance. Manufacturers were given and/or allowed access 
to the technical specification in December 2013, giving them almost 
nine months lead time. Also, a public workshop was held in January 2014 
to discuss the technical requirements of the recalls information 
exchange. This workshop allowed manufacturers' staff to better 
understand the technical requirements, ask questions, and exchange 
ideas with NHTSA staff. In response to the workshop, NHTSA published 
updated technical specifications in March 2014. NHTSA continues to work 
closely with manufacturers to ensure systems are ready by the August 
2014 deadline. Indeed, a number of the Alliance's members are actively 
engaged in testing exchanges with NHTSA at this time. Accordingly, we 
are denying the petitions to extend the effective date for the VIN 
look-up tool.
6. Failures of Manufacturers To Provide VIN Look-up Services
    Global Automakers commented that a manufacturer's electronic 
reporting system or public Web site can experience temporary 
malfunctions, as with any electronic system. It noted that these 
disruptions could occur for any number of reasons, despite all 
reasonable efforts by a manufacturer to prevent a disruption. 
Accordingly, Global requested that we state affirmatively that such 
temporary system malfunctions that prevent compliance with our 
reporting or public information requirements will not be subject to 
civil penalties, provided that manufacturers take reasonable steps to 
minimize the occurrence of such events and respond expeditiously to any 
system malfunctions.
    We understand the concern, but do not believe it is necessary to 
make an affirmative statement that temporary system malfunctions will 
not be subject civil penalties. As in the past, we intend to 
responsibly exercise our enforcement discretion concerning instances of 
manufacturer failures to comply and to conduct investigations, as 
necessary, to determine the facts of a particular situation. We plan to 
use the facts and circumstances of each matter to guide a decision 
whether to pursue an enforcement action, including one for penalties.
7. Timing of NHTSA's Workshops
    In the final rule, we committed to hosting workshops for both the 
recalls portal and the VIN-based safety recalls search tool to be 
housed on our Web site www.safercar.gov. For the latter, we indicated 
we anticipated hosting a workshop in early 2014. The Alliance requested 
we schedule the workshops as soon as possible and before the end of 
2013.
    We considered this request and scheduled the workshop to discuss 
the technical specification for the VIN-based safety recalls search 
tool for January 2014. Notice of this meeting was provided in a Federal 
Register Notice published December 26, 2013 (78 FR 248).
    As to the recalls portal, we remain committed to hosting workshops 
and to providing advance notice of them. On May 27, 2014, we published 
a notice in the Federal Register announcing multiple training workshops 
to be held July 28, 2014, through August 8, 2014. Participants must 
register in advance and registration instructions are provided in the 
notice. 79 FR 30234. These workshops will offer robust, instructor-led 
remote training, as opposed to in-person training that may require 
considerable travel and expense for many. The recalls portal workshops 
will be more training-based, as opposed to design-based, and so there 
is not an immediate need for the industry workshops or their 
scheduling.

C. Petitions Related to Amendments to Part 573 and Part 577

1. Requirement for Recall Notification Envelope Label
    As part of the final rule, we amended the text of 49 CFR 577.5(a) 
to require that the envelope in which a manufacturer notifies owners 
and purchasers of a safety recall have imprinted on the front a label, 
one by three inches in size. 78 FR 51422. We specified in the 
regulatory text that the label would be available at a specific address 
and secure location on our Web site. NHTSA stated that in the event of 
a change or an update to the label, NHTSA would provide notice through 
the online Recall Portal. 78 FR 51409. The Alliance disagrees with this 
approach and contends that NHTSA

[[Page 43676]]

must specify all the content and formatting for the label within the 
regulatory text of part 577 itself, or as an Appendix or Figure 
incorporated within part 577. In its view, changes or updates to the 
label would not be possible without providing notice and comment on the 
revisions, as well as modifying the regulatory text of part 577 
accordingly.
    After further consideration, we agree with the Alliance regarding 
an opportunity for notice and comment should we decide to amend the 
label. Accordingly, we are today incorporating an image of the required 
label, together with the specific color, text, and formatting 
requirements, into the regulatory text by adding new Sec.  577.14. 
While the label will remain available to manufacturers for at least the 
near term online through the safercar.gov Web site, we are today 
removing the regulatory text specifying its online location. A specific 
online location is no longer necessary in view of the change to 
regulatory text and may become a housekeeping burden as online content 
changes and progresses over time.
2. Requirement To Utilize NHTSA's Online Recalls Portal
    In NHTSA's NPRM, we proposed the creation of a new, online recalls 
portal where a manufacturer would submit its information required under 
part 573. 77 FR 55638. Included with our proposal were examples of part 
573 report form templates through which manufacturers would provide the 
required notification to NHTSA and supply information that is required 
pursuant to federal regulation, either in the first notification or in 
a subsequent report.
    Our proposal was well received, with most commenters supporting the 
submission of part 573 information through an online portal. The 
Alliance agreed that electronic submission of part 573 information 
using standardized forms would better help NHTSA administer safety 
recalls. In addition, manufacturers submitted a number of constructive 
suggestions regarding the content and formatting of the form templates. 
We also received comments requesting that the agency make clear the 
difference between fields that were required to be completed, and those 
that were not required. In the final rule, we implemented a number of 
suggestions, including clearly indicating the required fields. We 
agreed that we would use an asterisk to denote mandatory information 
within a part 573 form, and attached an Appendix demonstrating this 
change. 78 FR 51404.
    While not raised in its comments to the NPRM, the Alliance now 
petitions that NHTSA must include the templates themselves within the 
text of part 573 (or as an Appendix or Figure incorporated therein). It 
contends that the templates could be changed without opportunity for 
notice and comment. The Alliance argues that the agency is obligated to 
specify the mandatory elements of the template in the regulatory text 
(or as Appendix or Figure) and cannot change those mandatory elements 
without amending the regulatory text after notice and comment. It 
asserts this is a requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA), as well as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 
require OMB approval of any form, printed or online.
    We note that this argument was not raised during the notice and 
comment period for this rulemaking. The idea of an online notification 
to NHTSA and reporting of information required pursuant to part 573 
through the use of a template was detailed at length in the NPRM, 
together with proposed forms for several vehicle types and items of 
motor vehicle equipment. We received multiple industry comments 
supporting this approach and commenters provided constructive advice on 
how to improve the concept. As the Alliance acknowledges in its 
petition, it concurred with this approach.
    In general, we agree that an agency must specify the mandatory 
elements of information to be provided to the agency (here, information 
required to be submitted in a Defect or Noncompliance Report pursuant 
to part 573), and must do so in regulatory text. We also agree that 
pursuant to the APA any changes to those mandatory elements must be 
made through notice and comment rulemaking. We also understand our PRA 
obligations require that we must submit for OMB's review and approval 
an analysis of the burdens associated with any new reporting 
requirements or changes to existing requirements.
    We do not agree, however, that the agency is obligated to 
incorporate the templates into the regulatory text of part 573 when the 
information that is noted as ``required'' in the templates is merely 
reflective of information required to be submitted by the regulatory 
text of part 573. With respect to the templates, they are the 
mechanisms for a manufacturer to deliver the information required under 
part 573 to NHTSA, and nothing more. The delivery mechanism is no 
different than a letter or even an email from a manufacturer submitting 
a part 573 report. The information that is required to be reported does 
not change based on the vehicle for delivery. We note that we marked 
elements of the reporting templates as ``required'' in response to 
comments requesting that the agency differentiate between the elements 
that are required under Part 573 from those that are voluntary. We also 
note that some commenters requested that the agency provide greater 
flexibility with the templates to include voluntary information.
    If we were to adopt the Alliance's view and make the template part 
of the regulatory text, we would arguably need to conduct a rulemaking 
and seek notice and comment on every adjustment to the form, no matter 
its relationship to content or format in order to bring to current the 
visual depiction. We do not agree that the APA is so restrictive.
    With respect to OMB approval, the PRA is concerned about the burden 
placed upon the third party by collections of information. The 
definition of ``collection of information'' includes any form or format 
including electronic form. In the NPRM and final rule, NHTSA adequately 
addressed the information collection for the required templates. 77 FR 
55635. OMB has issued a valid control number of 2127-0004.
    Accordingly, we are denying the Alliance's petition. We understand, 
however, the Alliance's concern that dramatic changes to the templates 
may require manufacturers to change processes and incur costs. Outside 
of ministerial changes to the templates, NHTSA will not make wholesale 
changes to the templates without manufacturer input.
3. Requirement To Notify Owners Within 60 Days
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) petitioned the agency to modify 
the regulatory text concerning new changes to owner notifications. In 
the final rule, NHTSA amended 49 CFR 577.7 to require manufacturers to 
notify affected owners within sixty (60) days of notifying NHTSA of the 
defect or noncompliance. By amending this text, the phrase ``within a 
reasonable time'' was removed. The CAS notes that the omission of this 
phrase means that manufacturers might not be timely with their second 
owner notification in cases where only an interim notification was sent 
to owners within sixty (60) days. The Center believes this omission 
could ``encourage foot dragging in the issuance of second 577 notices 
announcing availability of the remedy.''
    We agree with the petitioner that the phrase ``within a reasonable 
time'' should be included in Sec.  577.7, as it was included 
originally. We will amend Sec.  577.7 to add this language so that 
notifications announcing the availability

[[Page 43677]]

of the recall remedy are sent in a timely fashion.

III. Technical Corrections

    Many aspects of the August 20, 2013 final rule amended the safety 
recall requirements found in parts 573 and 577. In making those 
amendments, we omitted amending related procedural provisions. The 
following two technical corrections will be made to ensure continuity 
between the existing regulation text and the newly introduced 
requirements.

A. Technical Correction for Submitting Recall Communications

    As discussed above, the final rule requires that manufacturers 
submit all recall reports through a new, online Web site. See 49 CFR 
573.9. However, we omitted to amend the language in Sec.  573.6(c)(10) 
(submission of copies of notices bulletins and other communications 
related to the defect or noncompliance) to be consistent with the 
requirement to submit through the recall portal under Sec.  573.9. In 
order to clarify that all documents required by Sec.  573.6 must be 
submitted through the new recalls portal, we are amending Sec.  
573.6(c)(10) to ensure that all recall documentation be submitted 
through NHTSA's new recalls portal.

B. Technical Correction for Quarterly Reporting

    The August 2013 final rule established a 60-day timeframe, 
beginning from the date NHTSA is notified, for manufacturers to notify 
owners of a safety recall on their vehicle, even in cases where the 
remedy is not yet available. In finalizing this notification 
requirement, however, we overlooked an adjustment to the quarterly 
completion reporting requirement to make clear that recall completion 
reports were expected to start in the quarter that the manufacturer 
starts its remedy campaign, and not when it first notifies owners about 
the defect or noncompliance. As noted in the NPRM and our final rule, 
these two actions often do not occur simultaneously. In many cases, a 
manufacturer may experience parts delays or other circumstances which 
delay a prompt launch of its free remedy campaign.
    Currently, Sec.  573.7 requires manufacturers to start quarterly 
reporting on recalls ``beginning with the quarter in which the campaign 
was initiated (i.e., the date of initial mailing of the defect or 
noncompliance notification to owners) or corrective action has been 
completed on all defective or noncomplying vehicles or items of 
replacement equipment involved in the campaign, whichever occurs 
first.'' With the new requirement to notify consumers within 60 days of 
the filing of a part 573 report, even if a remedy is unavailable, the 
language in Sec.  573.7 is inconsistent with the new notification 
requirement. Because the purpose of completion reporting is, of course, 
to monitor and assess the success of a manufacturer's recall campaign, 
it's logical to start that reporting and assessment only once the 
manufacturer has launched its remedy campaign.
    Accordingly, we will correct Sec.  573.7 to clarify that quarterly 
reporting begins with the quarter in which the remedy program is first 
made available to owners.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    This rule responding to petitions for reconsideration makes several 
minor changes to the regulatory text of 49 CFR parts 573, 577 and 579, 
and does not increase the regulatory burden of manufacturers. The 
agency has discussed the relevant requirements of the Vehicle Safety 
Act, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, Executive Order 13045, Executive Order 13609, and the 
National Environmental Policy Act in the August 2013 final rule cited 
above. Those discussions are not affected by these changes.

Privacy Act

    Please note that any one is able to search the electronic form of 
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, 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), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

Regulatory Text

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA requests that 49 CFR parts 
573, 577, and 579 be amended 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, Pub. L. 
112-141, 126 Stat. 405; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 
49 CFR 501.8.


0
2. Revise Sec.  573.6(c)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  573.6  Defect and noncompliance information reports.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (10) A representative copy of all notices, bulletins, and other 
communications that relate directly to the defect or noncompliance and 
are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer or 
purchaser. These copies shall be submitted to NHTSA's Recall Management 
Division (NVS-215) (RMD), not later than 5 days after they are 
initially sent to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or purchasers. 
Submission shall be made pursuant to Sec.  573.9 of this part.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  573.7(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  573.7  Quarterly reports.

    (a) Each manufacturer who is conducting a defect or noncompliance 
notification campaign to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
owners shall submit to NHTSA a report in accordance with paragraphs 
(b), (c), and (d) of this section. Unless otherwise directed by the 
NHTSA, the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section shall be included in the quarterly report, with respect to 
each notification campaign, for each of six consecutive quarters 
beginning with the quarter in which the campaign was initiated (i.e., 
the date the manufacturer notifies its purchasers of the availability 
of a remedy) or corrective action has been completed on all defective 
or noncomplying vehicles or items of replacement equipment involved in 
the campaign, whichever occurs first.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec.  573.15(b)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  573.15  Public availability of motor vehicle recall information.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Where the search results in identification of a recall that has 
not been completed, state the recall campaign number NHTSA assigned to 
the matter; state the date the defect or

[[Page 43678]]

noncompliance was reported pursuant to Part 573; provide a brief 
description of the safety defect or noncompliance, including the risk 
to safety, identified in the manufacturer's information report or owner 
notification letter filed pursuant to this part; and describe the 
remedy program;
* * * * *

PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

0
5. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follow:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.


0
6. Revise Sec.  577.5(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  577.5  Notification pursuant to a manufacturer's decision.

    (a) When a manufacturer of motor vehicles or replacement equipment 
determines that any motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment 
produced by the manufacturer contains a defect that relates to motor 
vehicle safety, or fails to conform to an applicable Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard, or the manufacturer files a defect or 
noncompliance information report under 49 CFR part 573, the 
manufacturer shall provide notification in accordance with Sec.  
577.7(a), unless the manufacturer is exempted by the Administrator 
(pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such 
notification. The notification shall contain the information specified 
in this section. The information required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section shall be presented in the form and order specified. The 
information required by paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section may 
be presented in any order. Except as authorized by the Administrator, 
the manufacturer shall submit a copy of its proposed owner notification 
letter, including any provisions or attachments related to 
reimbursement, to NHTSA's Recall Management Division (NVS-215) no fewer 
than five (5) Federal Government business days before it intends to 
begin mailing it to owners. The manufacturer shall mark the outside of 
each envelope in which it sends an owner notification letter with a 
notation that includes the phrase ``SAFETY RECALL NOTICE,'' all in 
capital letters and in a type that is larger than that used in the 
address section, and is also distinguishable from the other type in a 
manner other than size. It shall also imprint on the outside of this 
envelope a label in accordance with Sec.  577.14. Except where the 
format of the envelope has been previously approved by NHTSA's Recall 
Management Division (NVS-215), each manufacturer must submit the 
envelope format it intends to use to that division at least five (5) 
Federal Government business days before mailing the notification to 
owners. Submission of envelopes and proposed owner notification letters 
shall be made by the means identified in 49 CFR 573.9. Notification 
sent to an owner whose address is in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
shall be written in both English and Spanish.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  577.7(a)(1) by revising the second sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  577.7  Time and manner of notification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * In the event that the remedy for the defect or 
noncompliance is not available at the time of notification, the 
manufacturer shall issue a second notification within a reasonable time 
and in accordance with the requirements of this part once that remedy 
is available. * * *
* * * * *

0
8. Add Sec.  577.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  577.14  Labeling for owner notification letter envelope.

    (a) Purpose and scope--The purpose of this section is to supply 
vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including manufacturers of tires 
and child safety seats, with the label required to be shown on the 
envelopes of safety recall notification letters mailed to owners 
pursuant to Sec.  577.5. This label shall not be used for any purpose 
other than compliance with Sec.  577.5 by any entity outside of the 
Department of Transportation.
    (b) Required label information and format. (1) The label depicted 
in this section must be printed on the front of the safety recall owner 
notification envelope. The content, format, and sequence of this label 
are depicted in Figure 1 of this section. A Spanish version of this 
label, for owners located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the 
Canal Zone, can be found in Figure 2 of this section.
    (2) The text ``IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL INFORMATION'' must be 
printed in capital letters, have a minimum font size of 10 point, and 
be printed in white text on a red background. Also, this text must be 
centered horizontally and located near the top of the label. The text 
``Issued in Accordance With Federal Law'' must have a minimum font size 
of 10 point, be printed in black text on a white background, and be 
located directly beneath the preceding text, also centered horizontally 
within the label.
    (3) The logo of the U.S. Department of Transportation must be 
located at the bottom, left-hand corner of the label. The logo of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must be located at the 
bottom, right-hand corner of the label. Each logo should be printed in 
black color with a white background.
    (c) Required label size--The label depicted in this paragraph must 
be 1 inch in height and 3 inches in length.

[[Page 43679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JY14.000

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

0
9. 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 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.


0
10. Amend Sec.  579.4(c) by adding, in alphabetical order, the 
following definition of ``Fuel and/or propulsion system type'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  579.4  Terminology.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    Fuel and/or propulsion system type means the variety of fuel and/or 
propulsion systems used in a motor vehicle, as follows: compressed 
natural gas (CNG); compression ignition fuel (CIF); electric battery 
power (EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle (HEV); 
hydrogen combustion power (HCP); plug-in hybrid (PHV); spark ignition 
fuel (SIF); other (OTH), and unknown (UNK).
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  579.21 by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding a third sentence to paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Adding a sixth sentence to paragraph (c)
    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) Production information. Information that states the 
manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the make, the 
model, the model year, the type, the platform, the fuel and/or 
propulsion system type coded as follows: CNG (compressed natural gas), 
CIF (compression ignition fuel), EBP (electric battery power), FCP 
(fuel-cell power), HEV (hybrid electric vehicle), HCP (hydrogen 
combustion power), PHV (plug-in hybrid), SIF (spark ignition fuel), OTH 
(Other), and UNK (unknown) and the number of vehicles produced. * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * * If a vehicle manufacturer is unaware of the vehicle type 
at the time it receives the incident, the manufacturer shall use the 
abbreviation ``UN'' in its report to indicate that the vehicle type is 
unknown. * * *
    (c) * * * For each report, the manufacturer shall separately state 
the vehicle type and fuel and/or propulsion system type if the 
manufacturer stated more than one vehicle type or fuel and/or 
propulsion system type for a particular make, model, model year in 
paragraph (a) of this section. If a vehicle manufacturer is unaware of 
the vehicle type at the time it receives the property damage claim, 
consumer complaint, warranty claim or field report, the manufacturer 
shall use the abbreviation ``UN'' in its report to indicate that the 
vehicle type is unknown.
* * * * *

Nancy L. Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-17497 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P