[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55605-55644]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21574]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 175

September 10, 2012

Part III

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0068; Notice 1]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Proposal to revise a
currently approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing amendments to certain provisions of the
early warning reporting (EWR) rule and the regulations governing motor
vehicle and equipment safety recalls. The amendments to the EWR rule
would require light vehicle manufacturers to specify the vehicle type
and the fuel and/or propulsion system type in their reports and add new
component categories of stability control systems for light vehicles,
buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers, and
forward collision avoidance, lane departure prevention, and backover
prevention for light vehicle manufacturers. In addition, NHTSA proposes
to require motor vehicle manufacturers to report their annual list of
substantially similar vehicles via the Internet.
    As to safety recalls, we propose, among other things, to require
certain manufacturers to submit vehicle identification numbers (VIN)
for recalled vehicles and to daily report changes in recall remedy
status for those vehicles; require online submission of recalls reports
and information; and require adjustments to the required content of the
owner notification letters and envelopes required to be issued to
owners and purchasers of recalled vehicles and equipment.

DATES: Written comments regarding these proposed rule changes may be
submitted to NHTSA and must be received on or before: November 9, 2012.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on proposed revisions to existing information collections. See
the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses below.
All comments relating to the revised information collection
requirements should be submitted to NHTSA and to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section on or before November 9, 2012. Comments to OMB are most useful
if submitted within 30 days of publication.

ADDRESSES: Written comments to NHTSA may be submitted using any one of
the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the US
Government regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by
hand or courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    Whichever way you submit your comments, please remember to mention
the docket number of this document within your correspondence. The
docket may be accessed via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments regarding the proposed revisions to existing information
collections should be submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding
methods and a copy should also be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to these proposed
rule changes must include the agency name and docket number or
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the Request for Comments heading of the
Supplementary Information section of this document. Please note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues on EWR
requirements, contact Tina Morgan, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For non-legal issues on recall
requirements, contact Jennifer Timian, Office of Defects Investigation
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, contact Andrew J.
DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
III. Background
    A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule
    B. The Foreign Defect Reporting Rule
    C. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports and
Notifications
    D. Scope of this Rulemaking
IV. Discussion
    A. Statutory Background on Early Warning, Foreign Defect
Reporting and Recall Notification Requirements
    B. Matters Considered in Adding Data Elements to Early Warning
Reports
    C. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
    D. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
    E. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency
Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    1. Stability Control Systems
    2. Forward Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure Prevention
    3. Backover Prevention
    F. Proposed EWR Reporting Templates
    G. Electronic Submission of Annual Substantially Similar Vehicle
Lists
    H. VIN Submission and Recall Remedy Completion Information for
Safety Recalls
    I. Added Requirements for Information Required to be Submitted
in a Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Information Report
    1. An Identification and Description of the Risk Associated with
the Safety Defect or Noncompliance with FMVSS
    2. As to Motor Vehicle Equipment Recalls, the Brand Name, Model
Name, and Model Number of the Equipment Recalled
    3. Prohibited Disclaimers in Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance
Information Report
    J. Online Submission of Recall-Related Reports, Information, and
Associated Documents and Recall Reporting Templates
    K. Amendments to Defect and Noncompliance Notification
Requirements Under Part 577
    L. Regulatory Changes to Add or Make More Specific Current
Requirements for Manufacturers to Keep NHTSA Informed of Changes and
Updates in Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports
    M. Requirement to Notify NHTSA in the Event of Filing of
Bankruptcy Petition of a Recalling Manufacturer
    N. Lead Time
V. Request for Comments
VI. Privacy Act Statement

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. Part 579 Collection
    2. Parts 573 and 577 Collections
    G. Executive Order 13045
    H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    I. Plain Language
    J. Data Quality Act
    K. Executive Order 13609
VIII. Proposed Regulatory Text

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 potential safety related defects in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Congress concluded that NHTSA did
not have access to data that may provide an earlier warning of safety
defects or information related to foreign recalls and safety campaigns.
Accordingly, the TREAD Act required that NHTSA prescribe rules
requiring motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to submit certain
information to NHTSA that would assist identifying potential safety
related defects and to require manufacturers to submit reports on
foreign defects and safety campaigns. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m) and (l).
    On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published its Early Warning Reporting (EWR)
regulations requiring that motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers
provide certain early warning data. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C; see 67
FR 45822. The EWR rule requires quarterly reporting of early warning
information: Production information; information on incidents involving
death or injury; aggregate data on property damage claims, consumer
complaints, warranty claims, and field reports; and copies of field
reports (other than dealer reports and product evaluation reports)
involving specified vehicle components, a fire, or a rollover.
    On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published regulations requiring
manufacturers to report foreign recalls or other safety campaigns in a
foreign country covering a motor vehicle, item of motor vehicle
equipment or tire that is identical or substantially similar to a motor
vehicle, item of motor vehicle equipment or tire sold or offered for
sale in the United States. 49 CFR part 579, subpart B, 67 FR 63310.
Under these regulations, manufacturers are required to submit annual
lists of substantially similar vehicles to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.11(e)
    As described more fully in the Background section, below, EWR
requirements vary somewhat depending on the nature of the reporting
entity (motor vehicle manufacturers, child restraint system
manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and other equipment manufacturers)
and the annual production of the entity. The EWR information NHTSA
receives is stored in a database, called Artemis, which also contains
additional information (e.g., domestic and foreign recall details and
complaints filed directly by consumers) related to defects and
investigations.
    The Early Warning Division of the Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of early warning data and
documents submitted by manufacturers. Using its traditional sources of
information, such as consumer complaints from vehicle owner
questionnaires (VOQs) and manufacturers' own communications, and the
additional information provided by EWR submissions, ODI investigates
potential safety defects. These investigations often result in recalls.
    In the last several years, the agency published two amendments to
the EWR regulations. On May 29, 2007, NHTSA made three changes to the
EWR rule. 72 FR 29435. First, the definition of ``fire'' was amended to
more accurately capture fire-related events. 72 FR 29443. Second, the
agency eliminated the requirement to produce hard copies of a subset of
field reports known as ``product evaluation reports.'' Id. Last, the
agency limited the time that manufacturers must update a missing
vehicle identification number (VIN)/tire identification number (TIN)
information or a component in a death or injury incident to a period of
no more than one year after NHTSA receives the initial report. 72 FR
29444. On December 5, 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) which was followed in September 2009 by a final rule
that modified the reporting threshold for light vehicle, bus, medium-
heavy vehicle (excluding emergency vehicles), motorcycle and trailer
manufacturers' quarterly EWR reports. See 73 FR 74101 (December 5,
2008); 74 FR 47740, 47757-58 (September 17, 2009). This rule further
required manufacturers to submit EWR reports with consistent product
names from quarter to quarter and amended part 573 Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to require tire manufacturers
to provide tire identification number ranges for recalled tires. 74 FR
47757-58. The final rule also stated that manufacturers must provide
the country of origin for a recalled component. Id. Last, the rule
amended the definition of ``other safety campaign'' to be consistent
with the definition of ``customer satisfaction campaign.'' Id.
    The September 2009 rule did not address several proposals in the
preceding December 2008 NPRM. Those proposals sought to require light
vehicle manufacturers to include the vehicle type in the aggregate
portion of their quarterly EWR reports, report on use of electronic
stability control in light vehicles, and specify fuel and/or propulsion
systems when providing model designations. Id. The agency decided to
issue a separate rulemaking addressing some of the foregoing proposals
to obtain more meaningful comments. See 74 FR 47744. Today's document
addresses proposals raised in the December 2008 NPRM not resolved by
the September 2009 final rule.
    Recently, in July 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat
405, 763 (July 6, 2012). Section 31301 of this Act requires the
Secretary of Transportation to mandate that motor vehicle safety recall
information be made available to the public on the Internet, be
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number
(VIN), be in a format that preserves consumer privacy, and includes
information about each recall that has not been completed for each
vehicle. The section further provides that the Secretary may initiate a
rulemaking to require manufacturers to provide this information on a
publicly accessible Internet Web site. Id.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The early warning reporting (EWR) rule requires certain
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to submit
information to NHTSA. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. The EWR rule divides
vehicle manufacturers into different segments based upon weight or
vehicle application. These segments are light vehicles, buses,
emergency vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, motorcycles and trailers.
The proposed amendments to the EWR rule concern light vehicles, buses,
emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles.
    Today's document proposes requiring light vehicle manufacturers to
report vehicle type in their death and injury and aggregate reports.
Under the current EWR rule, light vehicle manufacturers submit vehicle
type as part of

production reports, but do not report vehicle types in either their
death and injury reports or their aggregate reports. This proposal
seeks to correct this inconsistency.
    We propose to require reporting on additional components in the
light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle, and medium-heavy vehicle
component categories and to amend the light vehicle, bus, emergency
vehicle, and medium-heavy vehicle reporting templates.
    This proposal also would add a requirement that light vehicle
manufacturers provide the fuel and/or propulsion system type for nine
(9) different fuel and/or propulsion system types. In addition, the
proposal would add definitions for each fuel and/or propulsion system.
    Furthermore, today's document proposes to add four (4) new light
vehicle and one (1) new medium-heavy vehicle component reporting
categories. The new light vehicle component categories are electronic
stability control, forward collision avoidance, lane departure
prevention, and backover prevention; the new medium-heavy vehicle
component category is stability control/roll stability control. We also
propose new definitions for each of these components. We are also
proposing to correct a minor inconsistency in light vehicle
manufacturer reporting of vehicle types to capture several recently
introduced light vehicle technologies.
    This proposal also seeks comments on amendments to a manufacturer's
reporting requirements related to safety recalls and other safety
campaigns in foreign countries under subpart B of part 579. 49 CFR part
579, subpart B. We propose to standardize the manner of submitting
annual lists of substantially similar vehicles under 579.11(e) by
uploading them, via a secure Internet connection, to NHTSA's Artemis
database using a template provided on NHTSA's EWR Web site. Currently,
manufacturers may submit their substantially similar lists by mail,
facsimile or email. See 49 CFR 579.6(a).
    Today's proposed rule proposes changes and additions to the
regulations governing recalls, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect
and Noncompliance Notification.
    We are proposing a number of measures in an effort to improve the
information the agency receives from recalling manufacturers concerning
the motor vehicles and equipment they are recalling and the plans for
remedying those products, in addition to distribution of that
information to the affected public.
    First, for motor vehicle recalls, and in accordance with the MAP-21
Act, we are proposing to adopt regulations that would implement MAP-
21's mandate that the Secretary require motor vehicle safety recall
information be made available to the public on the Internet, be
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number
(VIN), be in a format that preserves consumer privacy, and includes
information about each recall that has not been completed for each
vehicle. See MAP-21 Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.  31301, 126 Stat 405,
763 (July 6, 2012). The Secretary was given the discretion to engage in
rulemaking to require each manufacturer to provide the information
above on vehicles it manufacturers on a publicly accessible Internet
Web site. Id. at section 31301(b). We propose to exercise the authority
given the Secretary in sections (a) and (b), not only to meet the Act's
mandate, but to increase the numbers of motor vehicles remedied under
safety recall campaigns which, in turn, will serve to reduce the risk
of incidents, as well as injuries or fatalities, associated with
vehicles that contain safety defects or fail to meet minimum FMVSS.
    To meet MAP-21, and increase the number of motor vehicles remedied
under safety recall campaigns, the agency proposes to offer vehicle
owners and prospective purchasers an enhanced vehicle recalls search
tool through its Web site, www.safercar.gov, that will go beyond the
current functionality to search by specific make and model vehicle, and
will offer a VIN-based search function that will report back whether a
vehicle has been subject to a safety recall, and whether that vehicle
has had the manufacturer's free remedy performed.
    In order to gather the information necessary for us to provide this
enhanced functionality, we are proposing to require larger volume,
light vehicle manufacturers to submit the VINs for vehicles affected by
a safety recall to NHTSA. We further propose to require these
manufacturers to submit to NHTSA recall remedy completion information
on those vehicles, again supplied by VIN, that is updated at least once
daily so that our search tool has ``real time'' information that can
inform owners and other interested parties if a recall is outstanding
on a vehicle. In our effort to improve the information received from
recalling manufacturers, and so NHTSA can better understand and process
recalls, as well as manage and oversee the recall campaigns and the
manufacturers conducting those campaigns, we are proposing to require
certain additional items of information from recalling manufacturers.
These additional 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. We are also proposing that
manufacturers be prohibited from including disclaimers in their Part
573 information reports.
    Similarly, as part of our effort to ensure we are apprised of
information related to recalls that we oversee, we are also proposing
changes to add or make more specific current requirements for
manufacturers to keep NHTSA informed of changes and updates in
information provided in the defect and noncompliance information
reports they supply.
    We are proposing to require manufacturers to submit through a
secure, agency-owned and managed web-based application, all recall-
related reports, information, and associated documents. This is to
improve our efficiency and accuracy in collecting and processing
important recalls information and then distributing it to the public.
It also will reduce a current and significant allocation of agency
resources spent translating and processing the same information that is
currently submitted in a free text fashion, whether that text is
delivered via a hard copy, mailed submission, or delivered
electronically through email.
    In order to ensure that owners are promptly notified of safety
defects and failures to meet minimum safety standards, we are proposing
to specify that manufacturers notify owners and purchasers no later
than 60 days of when a safety defect or noncompliance decision is made.
In the event the free remedy is not available at the time of
notification, we are proposing that manufacturers be required to issue
a second notification to owners and purchasers once that remedy is
available.
    In an effort to encourage owners to have recall repairs made to
their vehicles and vehicle equipment, we are proposing additional
requirements governing the content and formatting of owner notification
letters and the envelopes in which they are mailed in an effort to
improve the number of vehicles that receive a remedy under a recall. We
are proposing that all letters include ``URGENT SAFETY RECALL'' in all
capitals letters and in an enlarged font at the top of those letters,
and that for vehicle recalls, the manufacturer place the VIN of the
owner's vehicle

affected by the safety defect or noncompliance, within the letter. To
further emphasize the importance of the communication, and to
distinguish it from other commercial communications, we are proposing
that the envelopes in which the letters are mailed be stamped with the
logos of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
U.S. Department of Transportation, along with a statement that the
letter is an important safety recall notice issued in accordance with
Federal law.
    Lastly, we are proposing to add a requirement for manufacturers to
notify the agency in the event they file for bankruptcy. This
requirement will help us preserve our ability to take necessary and
appropriate measures to ensure recalling manufacturers, or others such
as corporate successors, continue to honor obligations to provide free
remedies to owners of unsafe vehicle and equipment products.

III. Background

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule

    On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published a rule implementing the EWR
provisions of the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m). 67 FR 45822. This rule
requires certain motor vehicle manufacturers and motor vehicle
equipment manufacturers to report information and submit documents to
NHTSA that could be used to identify potential safety-related defects.
    The EWR regulation divides manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment into two groups with different reporting
responsibilities for reporting information. The first group consists
of: (a) Larger vehicle manufacturers that meet certain production
thresholds that produce light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles,
medium-heavy vehicles, trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) tire
manufacturers that produce over a certain number per tire line; and (c)
all manufacturers of child restraints. Light vehicle, motorcycle,
trailer and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers except buses and
emergency vehicles that produced, imported, offered for sale, or sold
5,000 or more vehicles annually in the United States are required to
report comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. Emergency vehicle
manufacturers must report if they produced, imported, offered for sale,
or sold 500 or more vehicles annually and bus manufacturers must report
if they produced, imported or offered for sale, or sold 100 or more
buses annually in the United States. Passenger car tire, light truck
tire and motorcycle tire manufacturers that produced, imported, offered
for sale, or sold 15,000 or more per tire line are also required to
provide comprehensive quarterly reports. The first group must provide
comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. 49 CFR 579.21-26. The
second group consists of all other manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment (i.e., vehicle manufacturers that produce,
import, or sell in the United States fewer than 5,000 light vehicles,
medium-heavy vehicles (excluding emergency vehicles and buses),
motorcycles, or trailers annually; fewer than 500 emergency vehicles
annually; fewer than 100 buses annually; manufacturers of original
motor vehicle equipment; and manufacturers of replacement motor vehicle
equipment other than child restraint systems and tires). The second
group has limited reporting responsibility.\1\ 49 CFR 579.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In contrast to the comprehensive quarterly reports provided
by manufacturers in the first group, the second group of
manufacturers does not have to provide quarterly reports. These
manufacturers only submit information about a death incident when
they receive a claim or notice of a death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle
manufacturers must provide information relating to:
     Production (the cumulative total of vehicles or items of
equipment manufactured in the year).
     Incidents involving death or injury based on claims and
notices received by the manufacturer.
     Claims relating to property damage received by the
manufacturer.
     Consumer complaints (a communication by a consumer to the
manufacturer that expresses dissatisfaction with the manufacturer's
product or performance of its product or an alleged defect).
     Warranty claims paid by the manufacturer pursuant to a
warranty program (in the tire industry these are warranty adjustment
claims).
     Field reports (a report prepared by an employee or
representative of the manufacturer concerning the failure, malfunction,
lack of durability or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or
item of motor vehicle equipment).
    For property damage claims, warranty claims, consumer complaints
and field reports, light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and medium-
heavy vehicle manufacturers submit information in the form of numerical
tallies, by specified system and component. These data are referred to
as aggregate data. Reports on deaths or injuries contain specified data
elements. In addition, light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and
medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers are required to submit copies of
field reports, except for dealer and product evaluation reports.
    On a quarterly basis, vehicle and equipment manufacturers meeting
the production thresholds discussed above must provide comprehensive
reports for each make and model for the calendar year of the report and
nine previous model years for vehicles and four years for equipment.
The vehicle systems or components on which manufacturers provide
information vary depending upon the type of vehicle or equipment
manufactured. Light vehicle manufacturers must provide reports on
twenty (20) vehicle components or systems: Steering, suspension,
service brake, parking brake, engine and engine cooling system, fuel
system, power train, electrical system, exterior lighting, visibility,
air bags, seat belts, structure, latch, vehicle speed control, tires,
wheels, seats, fire and rollover. Bus, emergency vehicle and medium-
heavy vehicle manufacturers must provide reports on an additional four
(4) vehicle components or systems: service brake air, fuel system
diesel, fuel system other, and trailer hitch.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Manufacturers of motorcycles, trailers, child restraints and
tires report on varying systems and components. See 49 CFR 579.23-
26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Foreign Defect Reporting Rule

    On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published regulations implementing
foreign motor vehicle and product defect reporting provisions of the
TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(1). 67 FR 63295, 63310; 49 CFR 579, subpart
B. The Foreign Defect Reporting rule requires certain motor vehicle
manufacturers and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report
information and submit documents to NHTSA when a manufacturer or a
foreign government determines that a safety recall or other safety
campaign should be conducted in a foreign country for products that are
identical or substantially similar to vehicles or items of equipment
sold or offered for sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(1)(1) &
(2). To assist the agency's program implementation, manufacturers must
submit an annual list of substantially similar vehicles to NHTSA. 49
CFR 579.11(e). This list is due by November 1 of each year.
Manufacturers may submit their substantially similar vehicle list by
mail, facsimile or by email. 49 CFR 579.6(a). NHTSA offers a Microsoft
Excel template on its Web site http://

www.safercar.gov/ that manufacturers can download and use to upload
their substantially similar lists directly to NHTSA's Artemis database.
The vast majority of manufacturers submit their substantially similar
list by uploading the template directly to the agency.

C. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports and Notifications

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, manufacturers are required
to provide notice to the Secretary if the manufacturer determines that
a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect
related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable
motor vehicle safety standard. The regulation implementing the
manufacturer's requirement to provide notice to NHTSA is located at 49
CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports,
which, among other things, requires manufacturers to provide reports
(commonly referred to as Defect or Noncompliance reports, or Part 573
Reports, as the case may be) to NHTSA on defects in motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment and noncompliances with motor vehicle safety
standards found in 49 CFR part 571. Section 573.6 specifies the
information that manufacturers are required to submit to the agency and
Section 573.9 specifies the address for submitting reports. One element
is the identification of the vehicles containing the defect or
noncompliance. Section 573.6(c)(2)(i) requires manufacturers to
identify passenger cars by the make, line, model year, the dates of
manufacture and other information as necessary to describe the
vehicles. For all other vehicles, Section 573.6(c)(2)(ii) requires
manufacturers to identify the vehicles by body style or type, dates of
manufacture and any other information as necessary to describe the
vehicle, such as the GVWR. Section 573.6(c)(3) requires manufacturers
to submit the total number of vehicles that potentially contain the
defect or noncompliance. Section 573.8 requires manufacturers to
maintain lists of VINs of the vehicles involved in a recall as well as
the remedy status for each vehicle to be included in a manufacturer's
quarterly reporting as specified in 573.7.
    The conduct of a recall notification campaign, including how and
when owners, dealers, and distributors are notified, is addressed by
regulation in 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification.
Section 577.5 specifies required content and structure of the owner
notifications. Section 577.13 specifies required content for dealer and
distributor notifications. Section 577.7 dictates the time and manner
of these notifications.
    Recently, in July 2012, Congress enacted the MAP-21 Act, Public Law
112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). It requires, among other things,
that the Secretary of Transportation require that motor vehicle safety
recall information be made available to the public on the Internet, be
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number
(VIN), be in a format that preserves consumer privacy, and includes
information about each recall that has not been completed for each
vehicle. Id. at section 31301(a). The Act provides that the Secretary
may initiate a rulemaking to require manufacturers to provide this
information on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Id. at
31301(b).

D. Scope of this Rulemaking

    Today's proposed rule is limited in scope to the proposed
amendments to the EWR requirements, the foreign defect reporting rule,
and to the requirements associated with safety recall reporting,
administration, and execution as delineated in Parts 573 and 577 of
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Apart from the proposed
changes noted above in the summary section, NHTSA intends to leave the
remaining current EWR, foreign defect reporting regulations, and safety
recalls implementing regulations Parts 573 and 577 unchanged.

IV. Discussion

A. Statutory Background on Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect
Reporting and Recall Notification Requirements

    Under the early warning reporting requirements of the TREAD Act,
NHTSA is required to issue a rule establishing reporting requirements
for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to
enhance the agency's ability to carry out the provisions of Chapter 301
of Title 49, United States Code, which is commonly referred to by its
initial name the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act or as
the Safety Act. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(1), (2). Under one subsection of
the early warning provisions, NHTSA is to require reports of
information in the manufacturers' possession to the extent that such
information may assist in the identification of safety-related defects
and which concern, inter alia, data on claims for deaths and aggregate
statistical data on property damage. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A)(i); see
also 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(C). Another subsection, specifically
30166(m)(3)(B), authorizes the agency to require manufacturers to
report information that may assist in the identification of safety
defects. Specifically, section 30166(m)(3)(B) states: ``As part of the
final rule * * * the Secretary may, to the extent that such information
may assist in the identification of defects related to motor vehicle
safety in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in the United
States, require manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment to report, periodically or upon request of the Secretary,
such information as the Secretary may request.'' This subsection
conveys substantial authority and discretion to the agency. Most EWR
data, with the exception of information on deaths and property damage
claims, is reported under regulations authorized by this provision.
    The agency's discretion is not unfettered. Per 49 U.S.C.
30166(m)(4)(D), NHTSA may not impose undue burdens upon manufacturers,
taking into account the cost incurred by manufacturers to report EWR
data and the agency's ability to use the EWR data meaningfully to
assist in the identification of safety defects.
    The TREAD Act also amended 49 U.S.C. 30166 to add a new subsection
(l) to address reporting of foreign defects and other safety campaigns
by vehicle and equipment manufacturers. This section requires
manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment to
notify NHTSA if the manufacturer or a foreign government determines
that the manufacturer should conduct a recall or other safety campaign
on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is identical
or substantially similar to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment offered for sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(l).
Subsection (l) does not define ``identical'' or the term
``substantially similar.'' Under the TREAD Act's foreign defect
reporting provisions, NHTSA is to specify the contents of the
notification. Id.
    The Safety Act also requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or
items of motor vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA and owners and
purchasers of the vehicle or equipment if the manufacturer determines
that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a
defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c).
Manufacturers must provide notification pursuant to the procedures set
forth in section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section 30119 sets forth the
contents of the

notification, which includes a clear description of the defect or
noncompliance, the timing of the notification, means of providing
notification and when a second notification is required. 49 U.S.C.
30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 confers considerable authority
and discretion on NHTSA, by rulemaking, to require additional
information in a manufacturer's notification. See 49 U.S.C.
30119(a)(7).
    In July 2012, Congress enacted the MAP-21 Act. See Public Law 112-
141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). Sections 31301 of the MAP-21 Act
mandates that the Secretary require that motor vehicle safety recall
information be made available to the public on the Internet, and it
provides authority to the Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct a
rulemaking to require each manufacturer to provide its safety recall
information on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Under section
31301(a), Congress has directed the Secretary to require motor vehicle
safety information be available on the Internet, searchable by vehicle
make, model and VIN, preserves consumer privacy and includes
information regarding completion of the particular recall. Section
31301(b) authorizes the Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct a
rulemaking requiring each manufacturer to provide the safety recall
information in paragraph (a) on a publicly accessible Internet Web
site. Specifically, section 31301(a) states:
    (a) VEHICLE RECALL INFORMATION.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall require that motor
vehicle safety recall information--
    (1) Be available to the public on the Internet;
    (2) be searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle
identification number;
    (3) be in a format that preserves consumer privacy; and
    (4) includes information about each recall that has not been
completed for each vehicle.
    While Congress has provided certain parameters to its mandate to
make safety recall information available on the Internet, it has not
directly spoken on the mechanism to implement section 31301(a), leaving
the agency to use its discretion to fill any ambiguity. Paragraph (a)
is silent with respect to who is required to make safety recall
information available, which manufacturers are subject to the
requirement, the types of safety information to be made available and
how and when the information is placed on the Internet.
    While it is clear that motor vehicle manufacturers have data
regarding safety recalls, NHTSA also receives safety recall information
from manufacturers pursuant to other provisions of the Safety Act and
NHTSA's regulations. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  30118 and 30119; 49 CFR
part 573. With both manufacturers and NHTSA collecting safety recall
information, section 30301(a) lacks precise language as to who is
required to make that information available on the Internet. Paragraph
(a) is clear that the ``Secretary shall require'' the information be
placed on the Internet, but it is unclear who the Secretary is to
require to place safety recall information on the Internet. Under this
language, either manufacturers or NHTSA may be required to place safety
recall information on the Internet.
    In addition, section 30301(a) is silent on which manufacturers are
subject to making information available on the Internet, only requiring
motor vehicle safety recall information be made available. This section
does not specify which vehicle manufacturers are required to make their
information available. Consistent with traditional tools of statutory
construction, Congress is presumed to know each agency's statutory and
regulatory scheme. Under its regulatory scheme, NHTSA often breaks down
motor vehicle manufacturers into different vehicle classes based upon
each vehicle's application. For example, under the Early Warning
Reporting (EWR) Regulation, 49 CFR part 579, subpart C, NHTSA divides
motor vehicle manufacturers into several reporting categories such as
light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, motorcycles and trailers and has
limited the reporting obligations of classes of vehicle manufacturers
that annually produce under a certain amount. See 49 CFP 579.21-24.
Here, Congress has not directly spoken on whether safety recall
information must be made available from all vehicle manufacturers,
certain classes of vehicle manufacturers or, like the EWR rule, certain
manufacturers based on annual production. Congress, accordingly, has
left it to NHTSA to determine the scope of manufacturers that are
required to place safety recall information on the Internet.
    Moreover, section 30301(a) does not expressly state the type of
safety recall information that must be placed on the Internet, merely
requiring ``motor vehicle safety recall information'' and requiring
that this information be searchable by vehicle, make and model and VIN.
Other than vehicle make, model and VIN, section 30301(a) requires only
that ``motor vehicle safety information'' include information about
each recall that has not been completed for each vehicle. However,
under NHTSA regulations, recall information is broader than the
information specifically listed in section 30301(a). Under 49 CFR part
573, in general, manufacturers are required to submit several types of
information, such as the total number of vehicles, an estimate of the
percentage of vehicles with the defect, a description of the defect, a
chronology of all the principal events that lead to the determination
of a recall, a description of the manufacturer's remedy program, etc.
See 49 CFR 573.6. Given the diversity of information that could
constitute safety recall information, Congress has vested considerable
discretion with NHTSA to determine the appropriate types of information
to be placed on the Internet.
    Section 30301(a) also fails to specify how and when the safety
recall information shall be placed on the Internet. Other than
providing for the information to be searchable by vehicle make, model
and VIN, and that the format preserves consumer privacy, section
31301(a) is silent on the format and degree of availability of the
safety recall information. Current information available on the
Safercar.com Web site is available in different formats and degrees of
availability. For instance, the agency makes consumer complaints
available on the Internet in two different formats. One format is
searchable by vehicle, make, model and component. The other format
provides the public the ability to download NHTSA's consumer complaint
database, which permits the individual to perform customized searches
of the consumer complaint database. Without precise language specifying
the format and degree of availability, NHTSA is left to determine the
appropriate mechanism for placement on the Internet.
    While providing authority to conduct a rulemaking, section 31301(b)
provides little help in resolving the issues in paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b) provides the Secretary with the authority to conduct a
rulemaking to provide the information in subsection (a) and provides
limited instructions as to the scope of any such rulemaking and sharing
such information with automobile dealers and consumers. Section
31301(b) states:
    (b) RULEMAKING.--The Secretary may initiate a rulemaking proceeding
to require each manufacturer to provide the information described in
subsection (a), with respect to that manufacturer's motor vehicles, on
a publicly accessible

Internet Web site. Any rules promulgated under this subsection--
    (1) shall limit the information that must be made available under
this section to include only those recalls issued not more than 15
years prior to the date of enactment of [MAP-21];
    (2) may require information under paragraph (1) to be provided to a
dealer or an owner of a vehicle at no charge; and
    (3) shall permit a manufacturer a reasonable period of time after
receiving information from a dealer with respect to a vehicle to update
the information about the vehicle on the publicly accessible Internet
Web site.
    Similar to paragraph (a) of 31301, paragraph (b) does not address
which manufacturers are subject to the requirement to provide safety
recall information on the publicly accessible Internet, whether the
information is placed on the manufacturer's public Web site or NHTSA's
Web site, the types of safety information to be made available and how
and when the information is placed on the Internet. Instead, it vests
considerable discretion in the agency to conduct a rulemaking to best
meet the statutory goals of section 31301. The MAP-21 Act further
specifies that a manufacturer's filing of a bankruptcy petition under
Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, does not negate its
duty to comply with, among other things, the defect and noncompliance
notification and reporting obligations, nor the requirement to provide
a free remedy, under the Safety Act. MAP-21 Act at section at 31312.

B. Matters Considered in Adding Data Elements to Early Warning Reports

    Under EWR, we endeavor to collect a body of information that may
assist in the identification of potential safety-related defects in
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. When we believe that the
EWR information may be refined or enhanced to further advance our goal
of identifying safety defects, we consider factors that are relevant to
the particular area of EWR under consideration. In view of our broad
statutory authority to require reporting of information that may assist
in the identification of potential safety-related defects, we do not
believe that it is necessary or appropriate to identify a prescriptive
list of factors for delineating particular data elements. Nonetheless,
based on our experience, the following considerations, among other
things, have been identified as relevant to evaluating whether or not
adding data elements to light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and
medium-heavy vehicle reporting would assist in identifying safety-
related defects:
     The importance of the data to motor vehicle safety.
     The maturity of a particular technology and its market
penetration.
     Whether the current component categories are adequate to
capture information related to proposed data elements.
     Whether ODI has investigated or been notified of vehicle
recalls related to the proposed data elements.
     Whether VOQ complaints related to the data elements have
been useful in opening investigations into potential safety-related
defects and whether those investigations have resulted or may result in
recalls.
     Whether manufacturers collect information on the proposed
data elements.
     The burden on manufacturers.
    We emphasize that the general approach of the EWR program is to
collect data on numerous systems and components in a very wide range
and volume of vehicles for the agency to then systematically review
information, with the end result being the identification of a
relatively small number of potential safety problems, compared to the
amount of data collected and reviewed. These data are considered along
with other information collected by and available to the agency in
deciding whether to open investigations.

C. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data

    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers producing
5000 or more vehicles annually to submit production information
including the make, the model, the model year, the type, the platform
and the production. 49 CFR 579.21(a). Manufacturers must provide the
production as a cumulative total for the model year, unless production
of the product has ceased. Id. While light vehicle manufacturers are
required to provide the type of vehicle with their production, they are
not required to provide the type of vehicle when they submit death and
injury data pursuant to 49 CFR 579.21(b) or with aggregate data under
49 CFR 579.21(c).\3\ Under today's notice, we propose to amend
579.21(b) and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to provide the
type of vehicle when they submit their death and injury data and
aggregate data under those sections. We also propose to amend the light
vehicle reporting templates for the EWR death and injury and aggregate
reports to reflect adding vehicle type. The proposed light vehicle
templates are located in Appendix A below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For light vehicles, type means a vehicle certified by its
manufacturer pursuant to 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7) as a passenger car,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck or a vehicle identified by
its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle pursuant to 48 CFR 568.4.
See 49 CFR 579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's proposal will assist ODI to identify potential safety-
related defects by making light vehicle EWR data received internally
consistent. Because light vehicle manufacturers providing quarterly EWR
reports are not obligated to provide the vehicle type in their death
and injury and aggregate EWR reports, NHTSA is unable to distinguish
whether the light vehicle death and injury and aggregate data are
associated with certain vehicle types such as passenger cars, multi-
purpose vehicles, light trucks or incomplete vehicles. Without being
able to isolate this information by vehicle type, ODI cannot match
aggregate data with production data.
    If this proposal is adopted, NHTSA could perform a more focused
analysis of the EWR information. For instance, warranty claims by
vehicle type from the aggregate data can be matched with corresponding
vehicle type production data, allowing us to determine the occurrence
of warranty claims per vehicle type. This proportion can be used in a
subsequent, more focused and thorough analysis of EWR data. A
relatively high rate of warranty claims per production unit may warrant
further examination of EWR and other ODI sources of information. This
proposal would permit a more efficient and targeted use of the EWR data
in terms of detecting and identifying potential safety concerns.
    Light vehicle manufacturers should be able to readily identify the
vehicle type from the VIN provided in the information they receive.
About 95 percent of the EWR reports on incidents involving a death or
injury include a VIN when initially submitted by manufacturers. 71 FR
52040, 52046 (September 1, 2006). Warranty claims and field reports
normally contain a VIN because the manufacturer's authorized dealer or
representative has access to the vehicle and, in the case of warranty
claims, a vehicle manufacturer will not pay a warranty claim unless the
claim includes the VIN. For consumer complaints and property damage
claims, the VIN or other information is generally available to identify
the type of vehicle. If the VIN is not available, we propose that the
manufacturer submit ``UN'' for ``unknown'' in the required field.
    NHTSA believes that this change would place a minimal burden on
light

vehicle manufacturers. Each manufacturer would need to add a field to
its EWR database containing the light vehicle type and perform
reprogramming of internal software. In its response to the December
2008 NPRM, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), an
industry trade group,\4\ did not object to this proposal, stating that
the costs were relatively modest. See Comment of Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers to December 5, 2008 NPRM (docket NHTSA 2008-
0169-0013.1, located at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064808443c2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Alliance members are BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor
Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz,
Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on today's proposed amendments to 49 CFR 579.21(b)
and (c) to add a vehicle type requirement to EWR death and injury and
aggregate data reports. In any comments on burden, we seek details on
costs to revise EWR templates and software to meet this proposal.

D. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type

    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers to report
the required information by make, model and model year. 49 CFR
579.21(a), (b)(2), (c). The rule also requires light vehicle
manufacturers to subdivide their EWR death and injury and aggregate
reports by components. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c). The reporting by make,
model and model year and component categories have remained unchanged
since the EWR regulation was published in July 2002. Since that time,
manufacturers have introduced new technologies to meet the demand for
more fuel efficient vehicles. Currently, light vehicle manufacturers do
not identify the specific fuel or propulsion system used in their
vehicles. As use of these new technologies expands, we are concerned
that the current EWR reporting scheme is not sufficiently sensitive for
readily identifying vehicles with different fuel and/or propulsion
system types. For example, some models, such as the Toyota Camry, are
offered with both conventional and hybrid propulsion systems. To
address these concerns, we propose to amend 579.21(a), (b), and (c) to
require light vehicle manufacturers to report fuel and/or propulsion
system types in their EWR reports. We also propose to amend the light
vehicle reporting templates to reflect these proposals. We propose
adding eight (8) fuel and/or propulsion systems and an ``other''
category in which manufacturers may bin their vehicles. We are also
proposing definitions for each fuel and/or propulsion system and codes
that a manufacturer would use when reporting.
    The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard and new
proposed CAFE standards will spur manufacturers to increasingly produce
fuel efficient vehicles employing various technologies. Following the
direction set by President Obama on May 21, 2010, NHTSA and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas emissions
regulations for model year (MY) 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles.\5\ NHTSA
believes that to meet the proposed CAFE rule, manufacturers will
increase their production of light vehicles with alternate fuel/
propulsion systems which will raise new safety issues in these vehicle
that are currently unaccounted for in the EWR regulatory scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2017 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, 76 FR 74854-75420, December 1, 2011 (located
at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as the automotive industry begins to introduce and
produce more vehicles with new propulsion systems, NHTSA believes now
is an opportune time to start collecting EWR information to assist in
identifying potential defects in these new systems. As currently
configured, the EWR reporting structure may mask potential problems
with these systems. NHTSA is currently unable to discern from EWR data
whether a particular vehicle problem is unique to a particular fuel or
propulsion system. Under today's proposal, problems with a particular
make and model that may be unique to one fuel/propulsion system could
be readily distinguished from problems that may apply to that make and
model regardless of the fuel/propulsion system. Also, this proposal
would permit NHTSA to investigate safety concerns in many makes and
models with similar fuel/propulsion systems (e.g., a battery problem in
a plug-in electric vehicle or a hydrogen fuel cell problem that may
extend to similarly equipped vehicles).
    We believe that adding the appropriate fuel and/or propulsion
system type to EWR will enhance NHTSA's ability to identify and address
potential safety defects related to specific fuel and/or propulsion
systems. Recent investigations indicate that dividing light vehicles by
make, model, and fuel/propulsion system will assist in our
identification of safety defect trends. NHTSA has opened several
investigations on light vehicle models manufactured with more than one
fuel or propulsion system as an option. Each investigation involved an
issue with a specific fuel or propulsion system that under current EWR
reporting is masked by light vehicle manufacturers reporting the
vehicles under one category for fuel/propulsion:
     PE02-071 and EA03-001 involved alleged vehicle explosions
during fires on 1996-2003 Ford Crown Victoria vehicles powered by
compressed natural gas (CNG). The 1996-2003 Crown Victoria was
manufactured with two (2) different fuel/propulsion systems: Spark
ignition fuel (SIF) and CNG. This resulted in a recall: NHTSA recall
number 03V472.
     PE07-028 involved alleged CNG tanks exploding during fires
on 2003 Honda Civic vehicles powered by CNG. Honda recalled the
vehicles. See NHTSA recall number 07V512. The 2003 Honda Civic is
available with three (3) different fuel/propulsion systems: SIF, hybrid
(HEV) or CNG.
    Accordingly, we propose amending 49 CFR 579.21(a), (b), and (c) to
require light vehicle manufacturers to provide the type of fuel and/or
propulsion system when they submit their EWR data. We also propose
amending the light vehicle reporting templates for the EWR production
information, death and injury, and aggregate reports to reflect adding
fuel and/or propulsion type.
    We propose adding a new definition of ``fuel and/or propulsion
system type'' in 49 CFR 579.4. The new definition would provide that
``Fuel and/or propulsion system type means the variety of fuel and/or
propulsion systems used in a vehicle, as follows: Compressed natural
gas (CNG); compression ignition fuel (CIF); electric battery power
(EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle (HEV); hydrogen
based power (HBP); plug-in hybrid (PHV); and spark ignition fuel
(SIF).'' Manufacturers would identify the fuel and/or propulsion system
on the EWR template in the appropriate field. In addition to amending
579.4 to add ``fuel and/or propulsion system type'', we propose to
amend that section to add a definition for each fuel/propulsion system
type, as follows:
     Compressed natural gas (CNG) means, in the context of
reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that uses
compressed natural gas to propel a motor vehicle.
     Compression ignition Fuel (CIF) means, in the context of
reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system

that uses diesel or any diesel-based fuels to propel a motor vehicle.
This includes biodiesel.
     Electric battery power (EBP) means, in the context of
reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that uses only
batteries to power an electric motor to propel a motor vehicle.
     Fuel-cell power (FCP) means, in the context of reporting
fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that uses fuel cells to
generate electricity to power an electric motor to propel the vehicle.
     Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means, in the context of
reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that uses a
combination of an electric motor and internal combustion engine to
propel a motor vehicle.
     Hydrogen based power (HBP) means, in the context of
reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that uses
hydrogen to propel a motor vehicle through means other than a fuel
cell.
     Plug-in hybrid (PHV) means, in the context of reporting
fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that combines an electric
motor and an internal combustion engine to propel a motor vehicle and
is capable of recharging its batteries by plugging in to an external
electric current.
     Spark ignition fuel (SIF) means, in the context of
reporting fuel and/or propulsion system type, a system that uses
gasoline, ethanol, or methanol based fuels to propel a motor vehicle.
    We anticipate that the majority of vehicles produced by
manufacturers will be captured by our proposed definitions. However,
the proposal includes the term ``other'' to identify vehicle models
employing a fuel/propulsion system that is not enumerated in our other
proposed fuel and/or propulsion types. For example, the Dual fuel F-150
would be classified as ``Other,'' since it is propelled by either
gasoline or CNG. We propose to use the following codes for fuel/
propulsion type: CNG, CIF, EBP, FCP, HEV, HBP, PHV, SIF and OTH
(Other).
    Our fuel/propulsion system types include most of the alternative
fuels found in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as
amended, 49 U.S.C. 32901, but not all. Due to differences in the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and EWR programs, our proposed
categories of fuel/propulsion systems differ slightly from the
alternative fuels listed in section 32901. While EPCA encourages
manufacturers to produce vehicles using alternative fuels, the EWR
program has a different focus. In the context of alternative fuel
vehicles, that focus is on potential problems that may occur within a
fuel or propulsion system, which requires the agency to differentiate
between propulsion technologies that are, or will be, available to
consumers. For EWR purposes, there is no technical hardware difference
between a vehicle with a spark ignition fuel engine capable of using a
variety of fuels, such as ethanol or gasoline, or a mixture of fuels,
such as E85 (ethanol/gasoline mixture) and a vehicle with a spark
ignition fuel engine using gasoline only. While such a fuel distinction
is appropriate for the CAFE program, EWR will not benefit from that
level of detail because the specific fuel type being used will be
unknown.
    We solicit comment on our proposed definitions and seek input on
clarifying each distinct system type. We also seek comment on whether
additional fuel and/or propulsion system types should be added and how
they might be defined.
    The Alliance's comments to the December 2008 NPRM opposed adding
fuel or propulsion systems because it would increase manufacturers'
reporting costs. First, the Alliance contended that adding fuel/
propulsion system reporting by distinct models would impose a one-time
cost of approximately $170,000 (per manufacturer) to revise their EWR
systems to collect and properly bin the data. Substantial ongoing costs
would be incurred as well. According to these comments, manufacturers
separately maintain some data, such as production and sales
information, based upon the type of fuel or propulsion system in
various models. However, the Alliance states that manufacturers do not
separate vehicles by fuel or propulsion system when reporting EWR data
by component category. Doing so, the Alliance states, would require
manufacturers to revise their systems, which appears to be the bulk of
the manufacturers' costs. The Alliance also noted that adding fuel/
propulsion types would require manufacturers to report on hundreds of
different models. Today's proposal is different than the one proposed
in the December 2008 NPRM. Our current proposal would not add the fuel
and/or propulsion system type to the model name as was proposed in
December 2008. It proposes to add a new separate reporting element to
the EWR.
    If today's proposal is adopted, manufacturers will incur a one-time
cost to revise EWR templates and software to incorporate the fuel and/
or propulsion system types in their EWR reporting. However, in the
agency's view, adding the fuel and/or propulsion system type to EWR
will not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers because manufacturers
already collect this information. Manufacturers collect and analyze
data on alternative fueled models, like any other model, to monitor
quality control, safety problems and to make in-process improvements.
In their data collections, manufacturers distinguish between fuel/
propulsion systems within a model to conduct root cause analyses. Once
EWR systems are revised, additional ongoing burdens should be
negligible as manufacturers already have established EWR operations. In
addition, the agency has proposed a relatively small number of fuel
and/or propulsion system types that should not require manufacturers to
report on hundreds of different models, as stated by the Alliance.
    We seek comments on our proposal to amend 49 CFR 579.21 to add fuel
and/or propulsion system type to light vehicle reporting, the proposed
types of fuel or propulsion systems and each proposed fuel or
propulsion type definition. We also seek comments on the proposed light
vehicle templates located in section F below incorporating our proposed
amendments. Finally, on comments related to burden, we seek details on
costs to revise EWR templates and software to meet the fuel and/or
propulsion system type proposal.

E. 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
component categories for each vehicle type have remained unchanged
since the EWR regulation was published in July 2002. Since that time,
new technologies, such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Roll
Stability Control (RSC), Forward Collision Avoidance (FCA), Lane
Departure Prevention (LDP), and Backover Prevention, have been
introduced into the marketplace. As these new technologies are
implemented, and demand for these products increases in the market
place, we are concerned that the EWR component categories are
unsuitable for capturing these newer technologies. As a result, today
we propose to add components ESC, RSC, FCA, LDP and backover prevention
to EWR reporting.
1. Stability Control Systems
    We propose to add a new component for light vehicles, buses,
emergency vehicles and medium/heavy vehicles in 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and
49 CFR

579.22(b)(2) for stability control systems.\6\ On April 6, 2007, NHTSA
published a final rule adding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 126 Electronic Stability Control Systems. 72 FR 17236,
17310, as amended 72 FR 34410 (June 22, 2007). FMVSS No. 126 requires
that all new light vehicles, with certain exceptions, must be equipped
with an ESC system meeting the standard's requirements. As it pertains
to buses, emergency vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles, NHTSA studies
indicate that stability control systems provide potential safety
benefits for heavy trucks.\7\ In addition, for some manufacturers,
stability control systems are standard on all heavy trucks.\8\ As a
result of FMVSS No. 126 and safety benefits of stability control
systems on heavy vehicles, the number of vehicles containing stability
control systems is increasing rapidly and potentially could include
most of the vehicle fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Manufacturers may market or refer to ESC as electronic
stability program, vehicle stability control, rollover stability
control, vehicle dynamics integrated management system, or active
skid and traction control, among others.
    \7\ See DOT HS 811 205, October 2009, ``Safety Benefits of
Stability Control Systems for Tractor-Semitrailers'' located at
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811205.pdf and DOT HS 811 233, November 2009,
``Heavy Truck ESC effectiveness Study Using NADS'' located at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811233.pdf.
    \8\ Not your daddy's brakes: Technology advances allow for
shorter stopping distances and the development of stability and
collision avoidance systems, but there is a need for good
maintenance, Fleet Equipment, March 22, 2010 (located at http://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/Item/71983/not_your_daddys_brakes.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to stability control systems, RSC systems are
increasingly being installed on heavy trucks. RSC detects a high
lateral acceleration condition that could lead to a truck rolling over,
and intervenes by automatically applying the vehicle's brakes and/or
reducing engine power and applying the engine retarder. We are
proposing to include RSC in the definition of stability control in this
notice for medium-heavy trucks. In addition, while trailer-based RSC
systems are available, we are not proposing to include reporting of RSC
incidents by trailer manufacturers at this time. RSC systems are
installed predominantly on powered vehicles such as truck tractors,
rather than trailers, in the current marketplace.
    The EWR regulation currently does not have a specific component for
stability control issues. See 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 579.22(b)(2).
Light vehicle manufacturers report ESC issues under ``03 service brake
system'' and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers report stability
control issues under ``03 service brake, hydraulic'' and ``04 service
brake, air'' because those definitions include stability control. As a
result, potential stability control issues may be masked within the
broader service brake category, making NHTSA unable to examine and
detect potential safety concerns that may be associated directly with a
vehicle's stability control system. Adding an ESC component category to
light vehicles and stability control and/or RSC to buses, emergency
vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles reporting categories will allow
NHTSA to capture data on this mandatory system on light vehicles and
new system on medium-heavy trucks and analyze stability control data
for potential defects.
    We propose to use the ESC definition found in 49 CFR 571.126.S4 for
light vehicles. We propose to define ESC for buses, emergency vehicles,
and medium-heavy vehicles as a system that has all the following
attributes:
     That augments vehicle directional stability by applying
and adjusting the vehicle brake torques individually at each wheel
position on at least one front and at least one rear axle of the
vehicles to induce correcting yaw moment to limit vehicle oversteer and
to limit vehicle understeer;
     That enhances rollover stability by applying and adjusting
the vehicle brake torques individually at each wheel position on at
least one front and at least one rear axle of the vehicle to reduce
lateral acceleration of a vehicle;
     That is computer-controlled with the computer using a
closed-loop algorithm to induce correcting yaw moment and enhance
rollover stability;
     That has a means to determine the vehicle's lateral
acceleration;
     That has the means to determine the vehicle's yaw rate and
to estimate its side slip or side slip derivative with respect to time;
     That has the means to estimate vehicle mass or, if
applicable, combination vehicle mass;
     That has the means to monitor driver steering input;
     That has a means to modify engine torque, as necessary, to
assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle and/or
combination vehicle; and
     That, when installed on a truck tractor, has the means to
provide brake pressure to automatically apply and modulate the brake
torques of a towed semi-trailer.
    RSC has similar attributes related to rollover stability. We
propose to define RSC as a system that has the following attributes:
     That enhances rollover stability by applying and adjusting
the vehicle brake torques to reduce lateral acceleration of a vehicle;
     That is computer-controlled with the computer using a
closed-loop algorithm to enhance rollover stability;
     That has a means to determine the vehicle's lateral
acceleration;
     That has the means to determine the vehicle mass or, if
applicable, combination vehicle mass; That has a means to modify engine
torque, as necessary, to assist the driver in maintaining rollover
stability of the vehicle and/or combination vehicle; and
     That, when installed on a truck tractor, has the means to
provide brake pressure to automatically apply and modulate the brake
torques of a towed semi-trailer.
    Recent investigative activities and manufacturer recalls illustrate
that adding a stability control component category likely will assist
NHTSA to uncover potential safety issues. The agency has opened several
light vehicle ESC investigations since 2007 that under current EWR
reporting is masked by light vehicle manufacturers reporting ESC issues
under service brake system:
     PE08-056 and EA09-002 involved alleged ESC malfunctions on
2005-2006 Chevrolet Corvettes. The subject vehicles are allegedly
experiencing sudden and unexpected inappropriate brake application to
one or more wheels causing the ESC to malfunction. This investigation
resulted in a recall (10V172).
     PE08-072 and EA09-006 involved alleged ESC and/or Traction
Control System (TCS) malfunctions on 2003 Toyota Sequoias. The subject
vehicles are allegedly experiencing sudden and unexpected inappropriate
brake application to one or more wheels causing the ESC to malfunction.
This investigation resulted in a recall (10V176).
    In addition, there have been eleven (11) light vehicle recalls \9\
due to ESC problems and three (3) medium-heavy vehicle recalls \10\ due
to stability control problems. The agency believes that stability
control issues are likely to increase as vehicle manufacturers add
stability control to their fleets. In our view, it is important to
capture EWR data on this key safety component, supplementing NHTSA's
traditional screening methods to assist in

identifying potential safety issues sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The light vehicle recalls are designated NHTSA recall nos.:
98V080, 04V554, 05V119, 05V120, 05V177, 05V316, 08V645, 09V122,
09V130, 09V187, and 09V280.
    \10\ The medium-heavy vehicle recalls are designated NHTSA
recall nos.: 05V543, 09V115, and 09V196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance's comments to the December 2008 NPRM opposed adding an
ESC component, citing both substantive concerns and cost burdens. The
Alliance contends that most consumers will be unaware whether ESC was
activated or operated properly during an accident. In addition, because
ESC shares components with other systems, the Alliance states that it
will be difficult for manufacturers to ascertain whether a consumer
complaint, warranty claim, field report or other item reportable under
EWR should be included in the ESC category. The Alliance also asserts
that adding an ESC category would require a substantial investment.
    The agency acknowledges that in some instances consumers may not
perceive stability control problems during a crash or will be unable to
distinguish stability control problems from problems with other
components. This may occur when a consumer communicates through a
complaint or a property damage claim to the manufacturer. Although
there may be some of these instances, the agency believes that
misidentification of stability control complaints will be negligible.
The agency receives vehicle owner questionnaires (consumer complaints)
reporting potential problems with ESC. Furthermore, consumer complaint
data represent only 5 percent and property damage claims represent less
than 1 percent of the EWR aggregate data for the service brake
component. Consumer complaints and property damage claims data are
likely to be analyzed by a dealer's technician or manufacturer's
representative, who can identify customers' concerns and classify them
accordingly as either stability control or another component.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ODI recently reviewed consumer complaints submitted to the
agency by a manufacturer in the context of a follow-up information
request on EWR service brake data. ODI was able to classify the
manufacturer's consumer complaints into brake and ESC issues based
on the text associated with each consumer complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bulk of the EWR data for the service brake component consists
of warranty claims and field reports. Manufacturers likely have the
capability to identify and report specific problems associated with
stability control in warranty claims and field reports. Manufacturers
of light vehicles have elaborate warranty systems that capture
information about discrete components and service codes. Manufacturers
also track issues identified by their representatives in the field.
These data are valuable to manufacturers because they are the primary
sources for manufacturers to identify problems, and to monitor quality
and in-process improvements. With the ability to identify specific
issues through service codes and field inspections, manufacturers
should be able to code stability control issues appropriately.
    Adding a new component to the light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle
and medium-heavy vehicle EWR reporting is likely to create a one-time
cost for manufacturers to amend their reporting template and revise
their software systems to appropriately categorize the stability
control system data. We do not believe this cost will be substantial or
pose an undue burden on manufacturers. In the agency's view, as
discussed above, stability control is an important required component
for vehicle control and a malfunction can have an impact on vehicle
safety. Capturing data on this new technology will assist the agency in
identifying potential problems sooner. Because the number of vehicles
with stability control is increasing rapidly and all light vehicles
manufactured after September 1, 2011 must have ESC, we believe that it
is appropriate for the agency to start collecting EWR data on this
specific component.
    Therefore, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR
579.22(b)(2) to add Stability Control System to the list of components
in that section. We also propose to amend 49 CFR 579.4(b) to add the
regulatory definition of ESC systems, found in 49 CFR 571.126.S4,\12\
to add definition of stability control and RSC for buses, emergency
vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles, and to amend the definition of
``service brake system'' to remove stability control from the
definition. We seek comments on our proposal to amend 49 CFR
579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR 579.22(b)(2) to add the component ``stability
control system.'' We also seek comments on the proposed definition for
this component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FMVSS No. 126 defines Electronic Stability Control system
or ESC system to mean a system that has all of the following
attributes:
    (1) That augments vehicle directional stability by applying and
adjusting the vehicle brake torques individually to induce a
correcting yaw moment to a vehicle;
    (2) That is computer-controlled with the computer using a
closed-loop algorithm to limit vehicle oversteer and to limit
vehicle understeer;
    (3) That has a means to determine the vehicle's yaw rate and to
estimate its side slip or side slip derivative with respect to time;
    (4) That has a means to monitor driver steering inputs;
    (5) That has an algorithm to determine the need, and a means to
modify engine torque, as necessary, to assist the driver in
maintaining control of the vehicle; and
    (6) That is operational over the full speed range of the vehicle
(except at vehicle speeds less than 20 km/h (12.4 mph), when being
driven in reverse, or during system initialization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Forward Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure Prevention
    In addition to adding a component category for ESC, we propose to
add Forward Collision Avoidance (FCA) and Lane Departure Prevention
(LDP) system components for light vehicles in 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2).
These emerging crash avoidance technologies have been in development
for some time and are appearing in the current light vehicle fleet. As
these new technologies are implemented, and demand increases, we are
concerned that the EWR component categories will not capture them.
NHTSA believes it is appropriate to add these technologies to EWR now.
    An FCA system monitors and detects the presence of objects in a
vehicle's forward travel lane and alerts the driver by means of an
audible and/or visual warning of a potential impact with the object.
FCA systems seek to warn drivers of stopped, decelerating or slower
moving vehicles in the vehicle's lane of travel in order to avoid
collisions. Some FCA systems may also assist with driver's braking or
automatically brake to avoid collisions. Manufacturers may market or
refer to this crash-avoidance technology as forward collision warning
(FCW), predictive brake assist, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake
support, collision warning system, collision warning with brake
support, collision mitigation brake system, pre-sense or pre-safe
systems, pre-collision system, collision warning with brake assist,
and/or collision warning with auto brake, among other things. We
propose to define FCA as a system:
     That has an algorithm or software to determine distance
and relative speed of an object or another vehicle directly in the
forward lane of travel; and
     That provides an audible, visible, and/or haptic warning
to the driver of a potential collision with an object in the vehicle's
forward travel lane.
    The system may also include a feature:
     That pre-charges the brakes prior to, or immediately
after, a warning is issued to the driver;
     That closes all windows, retracts the seat belts, and/or
moves forward any memory seats in order to protect the vehicle's
occupants during or immediately after a warning is issued; or
     That applies any type of braking assist or input during or
immediately after a warning is issued.

    FCA systems generally employ radar, laser and/or camera-based
sensors to detect objects in front of the vehicle. Toyota Motor
Corporation's Pre-Collision System (PCS) utilizes a radar-based system.
Nissan's Infiniti brand offers a laser-based system. Toyota's Advanced
Pre-Collision System combines both a radar and camera. For FCA
reporting, we anticipate manufacturers will submit EWR data related to
these systems and their specific components. Where an issue arises
involving a component that has more than one function, we propose that
manufacturers report EWR data based upon the functionality of the
component as reported in the underlying claim, notice, warranty claim,
complaint, property damage claim or field report.
    An LDP system warns a driver that his or her vehicle is exiting a
travel lane and may automatically provide steering input to help the
driver maintain lane position. Manufacturers may market or refer to
this crash-avoidance technology as lane departure warning, lane keeping
assist, lane detection algorithm, lane assist, and/or lane monitoring
systems, among others. These systems generally use a small camera to
detect and track lane markings and provide an audible and/or visible
warning to the driver if the vehicle is in danger of crossing the lane
line unintentionally. Accordingly, we propose to define LDP as a
system:
     That has an algorithm or software to determine the
vehicle's position relative to the lane markers and the vehicle's
projected direction; and
     That provides an audible, visible, and/or haptic warning
to the driver of unintended departure from a travel lane.
    The system may also include a feature:
     That applies the vehicle's stability control system to
assist the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after
the warning is issued;
     That applies any type of steering input to assist the
driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after the
warning is issued; or
     That applies any type of braking pressure or input to
assist the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after
the warning is issued.
    Most LDP systems function through cameras placed on the windshield
that detect lane markers in front of the vehicle and calculate the
vehicle's position relative to the lane markers. For LDP reporting, we
anticipate manufacturers will submit EWR data related to these systems
and their components. When an issue arises with a component that has
more than one function, we propose that manufacturers report EWR data
based upon the functionality of the component as reported in the
underlying claim, notice, warranty claim, complaint, property damage
claim or field report.
    While FCA and LDP are relatively new technologies, their use is
increasing. Registration data indicates that there are over 769,000 and
657,000 registered vehicles equipped with FCA and LDP systems,
respectively.\13\ The latest production data from EWR indicate that the
total number of vehicles with FCA and LDP systems is now 1,656,000 and
1,292,000, respectively.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ RL Polk Registration data, July 1, 2009.
    \14\ EWR Production Data, 3rd quarter of 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is encouraging deployment of these important crash avoidance
systems by notifying consumers which vehicles offer them through the
New Car Assessment Program. On July 11, 2008, NHTSA published a final
decision notice in the Federal Register announcing changes to the New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for model year 2010. This change was
delayed until model year 2011. 73FR 79206. Starting with model year
2011 vehicles, NHTSA recommends ESC, FCW and LDW systems that pass the
NCAP performance tests on the Web site www.safercar.gov. 73 FR 40016,
40034. The agency believes that adding these technologies in NCAP will
increase consumer awareness of these beneficial technologies and spur
market demand. 73 FR 40033. We note that today's proposed EWR
components FCA and LDP have slightly different naming conventions than
the NCAP naming conventions of FCW and LDW. Both EWR's and NCAP's
definitions capture basic warning functions of these technologies, but
the EWR definition is more generic than NCAP due to the agency's
attempt to capture future versions of these systems that the agency had
not made a determination whether these systems are beneficial and
therefore should receive additional credit under NCAP.
    Adding FCA system and LDP component categories to the light vehicle
reporting category will assist NHTSA in identifying potential safety
issues for these critical safety systems. The EWR regulation currently
does not have a specific component for FCA and LDP issues. See 49 CFR
579.21(b)(2). Manufacturers may report FCA and LDP issues under ``01
steering system,'' ``03 service brake system,'' or ``18 vehicle speed
control.'' As a result, potential FCA and LDP issues will be masked
within these broader categories, making NHTSA unable to examine and
detect potential safety concerns that may be related to a vehicle's FCA
or LDP systems. Adding these component categories to light vehicle
reporting will allow NHTSA to obtain data on these important safety
systems and analyze them for potential safety concerns.
    Adding FCA and LDP as component categories to the light vehicle EWR
reporting will require manufacturers to incur a one-time cost to amend
their reporting template and revise their software systems to
appropriately categorize the data. We do not believe these costs will
be substantial or pose an undue burden.
3. Backover Prevention
    In addition to adding component categories for ESC, FCA, and LDP,
we propose to add a component category for systems designed to mitigate
backover crashes for light vehicles in 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2). On December
7, 2010, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to amend FMVSS No. 111,
Rearview Mirrors, to expand the current rear visibility requirements
for all light vehicles under 10,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
by specifying an area behind the vehicle that a driver must be able to
see when the vehicle is in reverse. See 75 FR 76186. The agency
estimates that on average there are 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries
(3,000 of which NHTSA estimates are incapacitating) resulting from
backover incidents every year. Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000
injuries were attributed to backover incidents involving light vehicles
under 10,000 pounds. Id. at 76187. While many manufacturers currently
offer vehicle models with some form of a backover prevention system, in
the near term NHTSA believes that manufacturers would meet these new
requirements with a rear visibility system that includes a rear-mounted
video camera and an in-vehicle visual display. As a result of the
rulemaking and the acceptance of backover technologies in the market
place, the agency believes that the number of vehicles utilizing some
form of a backover prevention system will increase dramatically and
that over time these systems will take on different trade names and
include additional functionality not present today.
    For the purposes of EWR, NHTSA is defining a backover prevention
system as a system that provides a rearview image to a driver to
prevent a vehicle from striking an individual or other object while
traveling in reverse. This definition is similar to the definition in
the December 2010 NPRM. Therefore, we propose to define backover
prevention as a system that has:

     A visual image of the area directly behind a vehicle that
is provided in a single location to the vehicle operator and by means
of indirect vision.
    We are proposing to define a backover detection system as a system
that provides a visual image to the rear of the vehicle or a sensor-
based system that provides a warning to the driver because
manufacturers are currently using these types of systems. NHTSA
estimates that 19.8 percent of MY 2010 light vehicles have an image-
based backover prevention system.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Backover Crash
Avoidance Technologies NPRM FMVSS No. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For backover prevention reporting, we anticipate manufacturers will
submit EWR data related to these systems and their components. When an
issue arises with a component that has more than one function, we
propose manufacturers report EWR data based upon the functionality of
the component as reported in the underlying claim, notice, warranty
claim, complaint, property damage claim or field report.
    The agency believes these measures will enhance its ability to
identify and address potential safety defects related to this important
safety system that is already in the market. The EWR regulation
currently does not have a specific component for backover prevention
issues. See 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2). Currently, manufacturers may report
backover prevention issues under ``13 visibility'' or ``11 electrical
system.'' As a result, potential backover prevention issues will be
masked within these broader categories, making NHTSA unable to examine
and detect potential safety concerns that may be associated directly
with a vehicle's backover prevention systems. Adding this component
category to light vehicle reporting will allow NHTSA to obtain data on
these important safety systems and analyze it for potential safety
concerns.
    Therefore, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add FCA, LDP,
and backover prevention systems to the list of components in that
section. We also propose to amend the definition of ``visibility'' to
remove an exterior view-based television system for light vehicles. We
seek comments on our proposal to amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add the
components ``forward collision avoidance system,'' ``lane departure
prevention system,'' and ``backover prevention system.'' We also seek
comments on the proposed definitions for these components.

F. Proposed EWR Reporting Templates

    Based upon the proposed amendments for light vehicle manufacturers
to provide the vehicle type and fuel and/or propulsion type in their
quarterly EWR submissions, and adding ESC, FCA, LDP, and Backover
Prevention system components to EWR reporting, we propose to amend the
EWR light vehicle production, death and injury, and aggregate reporting
templates. The proposed light vehicle reporting templates are located
in Appendix A to this NPRM. Figure 1 represents the proposed amended
light vehicle production template, Figure 2 represents the proposed
amended light vehicle death and injury reporting template and Figure 3
represents the proposed amended light vehicle aggregate reporting
template. Appendix B contains the proposed bus, emergency vehicle and
medium-heavy vehicle reporting templates that incorporate the proposed
amendment to add stability control to these vehicles. Figure 4
represents the proposed amended bus aggregate reporting template,
Figure 5 represents the proposed amended emergency vehicle aggregate
reporting template and Figure 6 represents the proposed amended medium-
heavy vehicle aggregate reporting template. We seek comments on our
proposed reporting templates.

G. Electronic Submission of Annual Substantially Similar Vehicle Lists

    The foreign defect reporting regulations, 49 CFR part 579, subpart
B, require manufacturers selling or offering motor vehicles for sale in
the United States to submit annually a document that identifies each
model of motor vehicle that the manufacturer sells or plans to sell
during the following year in a foreign country that the manufacturer
believes is identical or substantially similar to a motor vehicle sold
or offered for sale in the United States (or to a motor vehicle that is
planned for sale in the United States in the following year) and each
such identical or substantially similar vehicle sold or offered for
sale in the United States. 49 CFR 579.11(e). Manufacturers may submit
this list to NHTSA by mail, facsimile or by email. 49 CFR 579.6. When a
manufacturer notifies NHTSA of a safety recall or other safety campaign
in a foreign country, the agency searches the manufacturer's
substantially similar list for vehicles in the U.S. that may contain a
similar problem as identified in the foreign recall or campaign.
    Unlike EWR reports, manufacturers are not required to upload their
substantially similar list directly to the Artemis database. However,
most vehicle manufacturers upload their substantially similar lists
directly to Artemis through the agency's secure Internet server. These
manufacturers use a template that is available on the agency's Web
site, located at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/xls.cfm. The agency
would prefer that manufacturers upload their lists in to Artemis
because submissions by mail, facsimile, or email cannot be uploaded to
Artemis and are not readily searchable. To ensure that NHTSA can
readily search all substantially similar lists, we propose to amend
section 579.6(b) to require that the annual list of substantially
similar vehicles required by 579.11(e) be uploaded directly to the
Artemis database.
    We seek comments on our proposal to require manufacturers to submit
their substantially similar list directly to the Artemis database.

H. VIN Submission and Recall Remedy Completion Information for Safety
Recalls

    We are proposing a number of changes in the regulations governing
safety recalls in an effort to improve the information the agency
receives from recalling manufacturers about the motor vehicles and
equipment they are recalling, plans for remedying those products, and
distribution of that information to the affected public.
    The first of these changes proposes to require larger volume
manufacturers, whose safety recalls address the vast majority of
vehicles recalled, to provide to the agency VIN information for the
vehicles covered by their respective recall campaigns. This proposed
change is aimed, among other things, to accomplish the MAP-21 Act
mandate that the Secretary require motor vehicle safety recall
information be made available to the public on the Internet, be
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number
(VIN), be in a format that preserves consumer privacy, and includes
information about each recall that has not been completed for each
vehicle. See MAP-21 Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.  31301(a), 126 Stat
405, 763.With section 31301's mandate to make recall safety information
publicly available, we believe the best way to meet MAP-21's
requirement is to increase the safety recall information currently
available on the agency's Web site. The agency makes a considerable
amount of safety recall information available to the public. VIN
information from vehicle manufacturers will be used to support an
enhanced version of the

agency's current recalls look-up service available online at
www.safercar.gov. It will enable vehicle owners and other interested
users to determine with confidence whether a specific vehicle has a
safety defect or noncompliance that has not been remedied under the
manufacturer's remedy program. Our current recalls look-up offers the
functionality of searching for vehicle safety recalls, among other
ways, through a make and model search (and so meeting an express
requirement of section 31301(a) of MAP-21 Act), but it does not offer
information for any one, specific vehicle. We expect that providing
vehicle-specific recalls information will have a positive impact on
vehicle recalls completions, thereby reducing the risk of injuries and
fatalities associated with motor vehicle safety defects and
noncompliances with minimum FMVSS.
    Our service will cover all major makes, models, and model years, so
that consumers have a ``one stop shop'' for safety recall information
on vehicles they may own or consider purchasing. Owners will not need
to search multiple Web sites for recalls information regarding their
vehicles. The search functionality and returned information will be
consistent for all recalls, major manufacturers, and light vehicles.
    Additionally, by receiving recall information by VIN, NHTSA's
established recall email subscription service can immediately notify
its users, over 70,000 at present and growing, when their VIN has been
included in a recall. This benefit will be especially important when a
recall involves an immediate and imminent safety threat. Consumers will
be able to quickly conclude whether a serious safety concern they learn
about through television or social media is linked to their particular
vehicle.
    We propose to amend subsection 573.6(c)(3) to require larger volume
motor vehicle manufacturers that manufacture 25,000 or more light
vehicles annually or 5,000 or more motorcycles annually to submit
electronically the VIN of each vehicle that potentially contains a
defect or noncompliance, and will be covered by a safety recall
campaign. As with other information required to be submitted on
vehicles being recalled, manufacturers would be required to submit this
information when submitting a Part 573 Report, unless that information
was not available at that time, in which case, it would be submitted
when it became available, or, under a proposal addressed later in this
notice, within five working days of when that VIN information becomes
available.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Our proposal to change from a less precise ``as it becomes
available'' requirement to a more precise five working day
requirement is addressed in section L, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposal is consistent with recommendations to improve recall
completion rates (the percentage of the recalled vehicle population
that has the recall remedy performed) made by the U.S. General
Accountability Office (GAO) in response to its review of NHTSA's safety
recalls. See U.S. General Accountability Office, NHTSA Has Options to
Improve the Safety Defect Recall Process, GAO-11-603 (2011), available
in the agency's rulemaking docket.
    Our proposal would impose little to no additional burden on
manufacturers. Vehicle manufacturers already acquire VIN information
from state motor vehicle agencies for purposes of conducting recalls.
This is because, under the Safety Act, and its implementing
regulations, a manufacturer must notify each person who is registered
under State law as the owner of the vehicle of the recall, and
registered owner information is maintained on a VIN basis by the
respective State agencies. See 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A) and 49 CFR
577.7(a)(2)(i). In addition, larger vehicle manufacturers submit
specific VINs in connection with certain aspects of the Early Warning
Reporting Rule. 49 CFR 579.21, 22, 23, and 24. The agency simply
proposes here that vehicle manufacturers submit the VIN information in
a prescribed format. Indeed, many manufacturers already provide VIN-
based recall look-up functions on their Internet or other commercial
Web pages.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., www.carfax.com, Chrysler: http://www.chrysler.com/en/owners/and Ford: http://www.ford.com/owner-services/customer-support/recall-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our view, there are benefits to having NHTSA offer a similar
application for owners and consumers that cuts across all major makes,
models, and model years, so that consumers have a ``one stop shop'' for
safety recall information on vehicles they may own or consider
purchasing. We believe that providing easy access to this important
safety information will facilitate notifications of a recall to owners
and encourage owners and consumers to obtain the recall remedy. We
believe this would result in increased completion rates and a reduction
of the number of unsafe vehicles on U.S. roads.
    NHTSA must obtain information from the manufacturer on whether the
recall remedy has been performed on each recalled vehicle in order to
provide full information to a consumer and to meet the MAP-21 Act's
requirement that the Secretary require ``information about each recall
that has not been completed for each vehicle.'' Otherwise, the recalls
look-up function we envision will tell a consumer only that a vehicle
was subject to a safety recall at some point, and not whether the
remedy was performed. With the added recall information from large
volume light vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA can inform consumers that a
vehicle is subject to a safety recall and whether the remedy identified
by the manufacturer has been performed and meet MAP-21's express
provision to make this information available to the public. The
information must be up-to date, so we propose that manufacturers
electronically submit on a daily basis the recall remedy status of each
vehicle covered by a recall.
    We propose that manufacturers provide a vehicle's remedy status
using the categories required in the agency's quarterly reporting
requirements: Unremedied; inspected and repaired; inspected and
determined not to require repair; exported; stolen; scrapped; the owner
was unable to be notified (returned mail); or other (for whatever other
reason the manufacturer could not remedy the vehicle. See 49 CFR
573.7(b)(4) and (5).
    We propose an additional category to account for the period between
the time a manufacturer has decided to conduct a recall and notified
NHTSA, and the time it notifies owners of the availability of the free
remedy. This pre-recall launch or ``recall remedy not yet available''
category would inform an owner that his or her vehicle is subject to a
recall, but the remedy is not yet available. We propose that for VINs
designated by the manufacturer as falling within the pre-recall launch
period, our service confirm that the vehicle is subject to the
manufacturer's recall, so that an owner is not misinformed as to his/
her vehicle's inclusion, and knows that the remedy campaign has not
been launched. Our proposal expands the information we currently
provide via our recalls search function where we summarize the recall
campaign and inform when the recall is expected to start and provide a
telephone number for owners to contact the manufacturer for further
information. Under our proposal, more information would be available
because the manufacturer will now have the ability to designate by VIN
this pre-recall launch status in the event, due to parts delays or
other circumstances, the

manufacturer is unable to offer the free remedy to all involved owners
on the same date.
    We further propose a ``deleted'' category that will enable a
manufacturer to remove vehicles from a recall population. For example,
a manufacturer may have mistakenly assessed the scope of vehicles
affected by a particular safety defect or noncompliance condition and
will then need to adjust the population, by adding or removing vehicles
and their respective VINs.
    Also, we propose to require that manufacturers provide the date the
recall remedy was performed, where applicable, so that we can also
provide that information to interested owners and consumers.
    Under our proposal, a manufacturer would first submit VIN data for
vehicles covered by a recall when submitting a Part 573 Report (or, if
that information is not available at that time, within the prescribed
time of when it becomes available, typically within a matter of weeks).
The information would be submitted electronically in a table format.
Manufacturers would be required to list VINs vertically in rows with a
horizontally adjacent column for reporting the current recall remedy
status category, plus the pre-recall launch category, and a column for
reporting the date the recall remedy was performed (where applicable).
An example of the table we propose is located in Appendix C, Form C1,
attached to this notice.
    Thereafter, each day at a time specified by the agency, the
manufacturer would submit to NHTSA the same table, but now limited to a
list of VINs for which the recall remedy status had changed from the
previous day's submission, complete with the designations reflecting
the new status. Also, if there were changes to the recall population,
either additions or subtractions, the manufacturer would submit those
VINs as well. VINs that need to be added to a manufacturer's VIN list
would be included in its daily update to the agency with an
identification of the date of the addition. VINs that need to be
removed from a manufacturer's VIN list, due to later information
establishing that the vehicle should not have been recalled, for one
example, would be appropriately coded. We further propose to include a
comment column that can be used to attach any notes, up to 30
characters, needed to help describe the status of a particular VIN.
Appendix C, Form Cl, demonstrates these functions.
    A manufacturer's VIN data submission would be an automated process
accomplished through a secure server using secure file transfer
protocol (SFTP). The daily VIN updates of vehicles covered in a recall
along with the remedy status would be updated using a NHTSA specified
application programming interface (API). The manufacturer's server
would post to a secure server, operated by the agency, at a set time
each day. Only changes to the previous day's information would be
submitted, thereby greatly limiting the volume of information being
transferred from the manufacturer to the agency. After its submission
is completed and verified, the manufacturer would receive an acceptance
notice. If any portion of the submission was rejected, that information
would be returned to the manufacturer on a secure, NHTSA operated
Recalls Portal. The agency anticipates that its system will provide
sufficient detail (to the specific recall and VIN level) to the
manufacturer when information is rejected in order for the manufacturer
to quickly identify and resolve any problems.
    The requirement to submit VIN information electronically is not
highly burdensome. The information we seek in today's proposal is
already captured by manufacturers and submitted to NHTSA in part. Under
49 CFR 573.8, manufacturers are required to maintain information,
including VINs, on all vehicles involved in a recall notification.
These lists are maintained in computer information storage devices and
must be maintained for five years. However, because a manufacturer's
obligation to perform a recall remedy does not expire, manufacturers
must maintain records that, at a minimum, reflect the current recall
remedy status of the vehicles covered by their campaigns. In addition,
manufacturers are currently required to submit quarterly reports that
provide the recall remedy status of vehicles in a safety recall
campaign. In order to maintain recall data and determine recall remedy
status, most manufacturers use software and create large electronic
databases that are integrated with their dealer network. Such
electronic databases record VIN data and recall remedy status
information, update it, and synchronize this information on regular
intervals against their systems for processing and paying their
dealerships or repair facilities to perform the recall remedy.
Accordingly, larger volume manufacturers will only have to incur a one-
time cost to reconfigure their systems to transmit VIN data and recall
remedy status information in the electronic format NHTSA requires.
    The MAP-21 Act specifies that any rules issued pursuant to the Act
will ``permit a manufacturer a reasonable period of time after
receiving information from a dealer with respect to a vehicle to update
the information about the vehicle on the publicly accessible Internet
Web site.'' See MAP-21 Act at section 31301(b)(3). Given that paragraph
(b) refers back to the information in paragraph (a) in section 31301,
we read (b)(3) to include completion of the safety recall remedy
offered by the manufacturer on that vehicle. In this proposed rule, we
do not propose to define what that reasonable period of time is. In the
agency's experience, we have not encountered situations involving large
volume manufacturers failing to update their records on recalls
completions by dealers. Accordingly, we do not believe these
manufacturers will inordinately delay updating their internal recalls
completion records and thereby stymie the timeliness and accuracy of
the VIN look-up service we propose to meet MAP-21's requirements. We
seek comments on the agency's decision not to define the term
``reasonable period of time.'' Due to the statutory requirement under
the Safety Act that a manufacturer must remedy recalled vehicles when
presented, manufacturers maintain records reflecting a vehicle's recall
remedy status indefinitely. 49 U.S.C. 30120. Although manufacturers
maintain such records indefinitely, the utility and safety benefit of
NHTSA receiving such records decreases over time. Accordingly, we
propose to limit the requirement to provide electronic updates to 10
years from the date a manufacturer first supplied the VIN list for a
recall. Manufacturers are only required to provide a free remedy under
the Safety Act for vehicles that were bought by the first purchaser
less than 10 calendar years from when the manufacturer notified its
owners of the safety defect or noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(g).
Also, in the agency's experience and, based upon our interactions with
manufacturers, very few vehicles can be expected to be presented for
remedy 10 years after a recall notification has been made. In our view,
very few consumers will utilize our VIN look-up service to learn of
recalls on their vehicles that are over a decade old. Furthermore, the
utility of, and safety benefits derived from, a VIN-lookup service will
not be adversely affected with our proposed ten-year limit.
    In order to offer a functional VIN recall search tool and to
provide effective search capability at launch, we require a database of
recalled vehicle VIN data. Otherwise, when our VIN

recall search tool is launched, there will be very little utility to
the tool and users will be discouraged from using the tool, thereby
undermining our efforts to facilitate owner notification and reducing
the number of unsafe vehicles on U.S. roadways. Therefore, if the VIN
proposal is adopted, we propose to require manufacturers, within 180
days of the effective date of this rule, to submit VIN data for each
vehicle covered by a recall filed within 24 months prior to the
effective date of this VIN submission requirement. To clarify,
``filed'' means a manufacturer submitted a Part 573 defect or
noncompliance report indicating its intention to conduct a recall,
except those manufacturers that stated an intent to file a petition for
an exemption to the recall requirements on the basis that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (unless, of
course the petition was denied in which case the manufacturer would be
required to conduct a recall and provide VINs).
    A proposal to require VIN data on vehicles covered by recalls filed
prior to the MAP-21 Act's enactment is directly contemplated in the
Act, which provides that any implementing rulemaking, ``shall limit the
information that must be made available * * * to include only those
recalls issued not more than 15 years prior to the date of enactment of
this Act.'' See MAP-21 Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.  31301(b)(1), 126
Stat 405, 763 (July 6, 2012). Accordingly, our proposal to require VIN
data on vehicles covered by recalls filed within the prior 2 years'
time is well within the agency's discretion. We seek comment on whether
to require VIN data on recalls covered by recalls filed in earlier
years.
    Our proposal to require submission of VIN data to us is limited to
larger, light vehicle manufacturers. Although already permissible under
section 30119 of the Safety Act,\18\ the MAP-21 Act's express grant of
authority to the Secretary to require motor vehicle safety recall
information to be publicly available provides the agency discretion in
determining the information needed to meet the Act's requirement. See
MAP-21 Act at section 31301(b). This discretion includes setting
parameters that determine which manufacturers must provide recall
information for the Internet site that is contemplated under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Vehicle manufacturers must notify NHTSA and provide certain
information when they decide to recall their vehicles to remedy a
safety defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30119. Under section 30119, NHTSA has considerable discretion to
determine the contents of such notices, including content that
changes based on the product or manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. Sec.
30119(a). For example, in the case of passenger vehicles, an
identification of the vehicles to be recalled is to be made by make,
line, model year, and dates of manufacture, whereas other types of
vehicles (and items of equipment) are subject to different
requirements. Compare 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2)(i) to 49 CFR
573.6(c)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to limit the VIN submission requirement to manufacturers
of 25,000 or more light vehicles, or manufacturers of 5,000 or more
motorcycles, manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced
or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into
the United States annually.\19\ A manufacturer would meet these
thresholds if it knows or anticipates it will meet these thresholds by
the end of the current calendar, or if it reached those volumes during
the previous calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes here, ``light vehicle'' means any motor
vehicle, except a bus, motorcycle, or trailer, with a GVWR of 10,000
lbs or less. 49 CFR 579.4. ``Motorcycle'' means a motor vehicle with
motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and
designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the
ground. 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on current data received by NHTSA's Early Warning Division,
this notice includes a list of vehicle manufacturers presently meeting
the above stated production thresholds, found in Appendix E. At this
time, we propose to limit this requirement to these manufacturers
because, due to their production volume and their current obligation
for EWR reports, these larger manufacturers have the resources to
readily and efficiently meet the proposed VIN reporting requirements
using the electronic media we propose here.
    At this time, we are not proposing to require smaller light vehicle
or motorcycle manufacturers to submit VIN data. The costs and burdens
of this proposed rule would be greater on these smaller volume
manufacturers than for their large volume counterparts. For smaller
manufacturers that do not already operate robust computer systems and
complex databases, a one-time investment to purchase the needed
hardware and software and daily maintenance to meet the VIN requirement
could be costly.
    If after several years of experience with VIN data, we believe that
receiving VIN data from smaller manufacturers would be beneficial, we
may propose to include lower volume manufacturers. Of course, nothing
prevents these manufacturers from voluntary participation in our VIN
look-up service. We solicit comment on our decision to not include
lower volume manufacturers in this proposed rule.
    Based on feedback we receive about our current recalls look-up
service and email recall notification service, we anticipate that the
majority of users of our service will be individual consumers or users
of light vehicles and motorcycles, rather than medium-heavy commercial
vehicle owners and users. The latter tend to communicate directly with
the manufacturer or dealerships and rely less upon the Agency for
information about recalls or vehicular safety issues. If at a later
time, we believe that receiving VIN data from this community would be
beneficial, we may amend our rulemaking. As with the smaller volume
manufacturers, nothing prevents these manufacturers from voluntary
participation. We seek comment on our decision.
    Some large light vehicle manufacturers also manufacture medium-
heavy vehicles. In some cases, these medium-heavy vehicles fall within
the same model family (e.g., Ford F-series vehicles). Accordingly, we
clarify that should a light vehicle manufacturer make a defect or
noncompliance decision that results in a recall of its light vehicle
applications as well as medium or heavier duty applications, then it
would be required to provide the VINs on all the recalled vehicles.
This is to avoid consumer confusion and possible misinformation from
the agency in the event of such recalls. We wish to avoid foreseeable
situations where a consumer would hear of a recall in the news media or
through our recall notification system, go to our web site with their
VIN, and retrieve an erroneous message that the recall does not apply
to the vehicle or it is unknown whether it applies. Although we are not
proposing to require manufacturers to submit VIN data for recalls that
involve only their medium-heavy vehicle applications, we would expect
that manufacturers will not bifurcate their defect or noncompliance
decision-making and file separate defect or noncompliance reports in
order to avoid producing VINs on their medium-heavy vehicle
applications in those situations where the same safety defect or
noncompliance affects both light and medium-heavy applications. We
solicit comments on our approach of requiring light vehicle
manufacturers, where they recall vehicles for defects or noncompliances
that affect both light and medium-heavy applications, to submit VIN
data on all the vehicles being recalled.
    Some recalls involve safety defects where the consequences arise as
the result of exposure to certain environmental conditions. These are
commonly referred to as ``regional

recalls,'' and in these recalls only the vehicles currently registered,
or originally sold or registered, in those areas, are covered by the
recall. Consistent with today's proposal to require submission of VINs
associated with the recalled population, we clarify that only the VINs
of the vehicles covered by the safety recall are to be provided.
    To further comply with the directive in the MAP-21 Act, and meet
the safety objective of providing the public specific and up-to-date
recall information on vehicles, we propose to amend subsection
573.6(c)(3) to add three subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii). The first,
subparagraph (i), contains requirements for VIN submission as well as
recall remedy status for each VIN. Subparagraph (ii) contains the
requirement that, on a one-time basis only, manufacturers must submit
the VIN information for each vehicle covered by a safety recall filed
within 24 months prior to the effective date of this rule. Subparagraph
(iii) specifies that any vehicle manufacturer not covered by (i) or
(ii), may voluntarily supply VIN information for vehicles it has
recalled voluntarily, so long as it submits the information in
accordance with the requirements of both (i) and (ii).
    We seek comments on our proposal to require a list of VINs for
vehicles subject to a recall from larger vehicle manufacturers, as well
as our proposal to require these manufacturers to submit once daily any
changes to the recall remedy status of vehicles involved in recall
campaigns and the associated information identified above. We also seek
comment on our proposal to require VIN information for recalls
conducted within the 24 months prior to this rule's effective date.
    In addition to comments on our proposal, we solicit information
concerning plausible alternatives to our proposal. Specifically, we
solicit suggestions for VIN-driven recalls search mechanisms that do
not require manufacturer submission of VIN information to the agency,
but provide a comparable level of timely and accurate vehicle-specific
recall information, across a comparable breadth and depth of vehicle
applications.
    We would be interested in learning, for example, if vehicle
manufacturer VIN-driven recalls search tools located on their Web sites
are a realistic alternative or, as another example, if VIN-driven
recalls search tools owned by third parties are comparable
alternatives. We are interested in comments that address whether these
or other tools are plausible alternatives to a NHTSA-owned and operated
tool, given the many factors that affect the completeness, reliability,
and timeliness of information provided by a manufacturer on the recall
history of vehicles that it manufactured. Among our present concerns
are that not all vehicle manufacturers offer a VIN-driven service and
some offer it only if the consumer is a registered user of the site
with the manufacturer (a process that may or may not require input of
personal information such as names, addresses, and phone numbers).
Also, not all manufacturers provide recalls information to third party
sites, those that do may not provide that information to the same third
party sites. Some sites include marketing and other material not
relevant or distracting from the recalls information, and the currency
of the information as to whether a particular vehicle has been remedied
varies between search tools.
    We also solicit comments on the costs and burdens, as well as
expected safety benefits, of any alternatives suggested in comments. We
note that any alternatives must meet the MAP-21 Act's minimum
requirements. Safety recall information provided under an alternative
must be: available to the public on the Internet; searchable by vehicle