[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51381-51462]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19785]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 20, 2013

Part IV

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; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0068; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AK72

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is adopting amendments to certain provisions of the
early warning reporting (EWR) rule and the regulations governing motor
vehicle and equipment safety recalls. The amendments to the EWR rule
require light vehicle manufacturers to specify the vehicle type and the
fuel and/or propulsion system type in their reports and add new
component categories of stability control systems for light vehicles,
buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers, and
forward collision avoidance, lane departure prevention, and backover
prevention for light vehicle manufacturers. These amendments will also
require light vehicle manufacturers to segregate their Service Brake
EWR data into two new discrete component categories. In addition, NHTSA
will require motor vehicle manufacturers to report their annual list of
substantially similar vehicles via the Internet.
    As to safety recalls, we will now require certain manufacturers to
provide a VIN-based recalls lookup tool on their Web site or the Web
site of a third party; require the submission of recalls reports and
information via the Internet; and require adjustments to the required
content of the owner notification letters and envelopes required to be
issued to owners and purchasers of recalled vehicles and equipment.

DATES: This rule is effective October 21, 2013, except the amendments
to 49 CFR 573.9, 49 CFR 573.15, and 49 CFR part 579, which are
effective August 20, 2014, and the amendment to 49 CFR 577.5, which is
effective February 18, 2014. For more details, see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by October
4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket
Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for on-line access to
the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues on EWR
requirements, contact Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For non-legal issues on recall
requirements, contact Jennifer Timian, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA (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:

Effective Dates

    The effective dates of the requirements in this final rule are as
follows: all amendments to the EWR rule reporting requirements, and
contained within 49 CFR part 579, August 20, 2014; requirement of
certain large volume light vehicle and motorcycle manufacturers to
provide publicly accessible vehicle safety recall completion
information, and contained within 49 CFR 573.15, August 20, 2014;
requirement to submit safety recall-related reports, information, and
associated documents through a secure portal on NHTSA's Web site, and
contained within 49 CFR 573.9, August 20, 2014; requirement to include
the standardized label on all safety recall owner notification letter
envelopes, and contained within 49 CFR 577.5, February 18, 2014; all
other amendments to the safety recall reporting and notification
requirements addressed in this final rule, and contained within 49 CFR
parts 573 and 577, October 21, 2013.

Table of Contents

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule
    B. The Foreign Defect Reporting Rule
    C. Domestic Safety Defect and Noncompliance Recalls
II. Summary of the NPRM
    A. Summary of Our Proposals Affecting Early Warning Rule and
Foreign Defect Reporting
    B. Summary of Our Proposals Affecting Safety Recalls Reporting,
Administration, and Execution
III. Scope of This Rulemaking
IV. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
    A. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM as to the Early
Warning Reporting and Foreign Defect Reporting Proposals
    B. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM as to the Domestic
Safety Recall Proposals
V. Agency Response to Comments and Decisions
    A. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Early Warning
Reporting and Foreign Defect Reporting
    1. Matters Considered in Adding Data Elements to Early Warning
Reports
    2. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
    3. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
    4. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency
Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    i. Stability Control Systems
    ii. Forward Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure Prevention
    iii. Segregate ``Service Brakes'' Category Into Two New
Categories, ``Foundation Brakes'' and ``Automatic Brake Controls''
    iv. Backover Prevention
    5. Proposed EWR Reporting Templates
    6. Electronic Submission of Annual Substantially Similar Vehicle
Lists
    B. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Domestic Safety Recall
Requirements
    1. Public Availability of Vehicle Recall Completion Information
    i. Who Is Required To Provide Publicly Accessible Vehicle Safety
Recall Completion Information
    ii. Decision To Adopt Alternative Proposal To Require Covered
Manufacturers To Provide Vehicle Safety Recall Completion
Information on Their Own or a Third Party's Internet Site
    iii. Scope of the Safety Recalls Information That Covered
Vehicle Manufacturers Must Make Available
    iv. Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM and Agency Responses
    v. Specific Criteria for Manufacturer Safety Recalls Lookup
Completion Tools
    2. Requirements Related to the Information Required To Be
Submitted in a Part 573

Defect and Noncompliance Information Report
    i. An Identification and Description of the Risk Associated With
the Safety Defect or Noncompliance with FMVSS
    ii. As to Motor Vehicle Equipment Recalls, the Brand Name, Model
Name, and Model Number of the Equipment Recalled
    iii. Disclaimers in Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance
Information Report
    3. Internet Submission of Recall-Related Reports, Information,
and Associated Documents and Recall Reporting Templates
    4. Amendments to Defect and Noncompliance Notification
Requirements Under Part 577
    i. 60-Day Requirement to Mail Part 577 Owner Notification
Letters
    ii. ``IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL'' on Owner Notification Letters
    iii. Inclusion of Vehicle Identification Numbers in Owner
Notification Letters
    iv. Inclusion of Standardized Label on Owner Notification Letter
Envelopes
    5. Requirements for Manufacturers to Keep NHTSA Informed of
Changes and Updates in Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports
    i. Submission of Information Not Available at the Time of the
Initial Part 573 Report, and Amended Information, Within Five
Working Days
    ii. 90-Day Review of Part 573 Information Report for
Completeness and Accuracy
    6. Requirement To Notify NHTSA in the Event of Filing of
Bankruptcy Petition of a Recalling Manufacturer
VI. Lead Time
VII. Privacy Act Statement
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    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. Data Quality Act
    J. Executive Order 13609
    K. National Environmental Policy Act
    Regulatory Text

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule

    In 2000, Congress enacted the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Public Law 106-414. Up
until the TREAD Act's enactment, NHTSA relied primarily on analyses of
complaints from consumers and technical service bulletins (TSBs) from
manufacturers to identify potential safety related defects in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Congress concluded that NHTSA did
not have access to data that may provide an earlier warning of safety
defects or information related to foreign recalls and safety campaigns.
Accordingly, the TREAD Act required that NHTSA prescribe rules
requiring motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to submit certain
information to NHTSA that would assist identifying potential safety
related defects and to require manufacturers to submit reports on
foreign defects and safety campaigns. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m) and (l).
    On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published its Early Warning Reporting (EWR)
regulations requiring that motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers
provide certain early warning data. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C; see 67
FR 45822. The EWR rule requires quarterly reporting of early warning
information: production information; information on incidents involving
death or injury; aggregate data on property damage claims, consumer
complaints, warranty claims, and field reports; and copies of field
reports (other than dealer reports and product evaluation reports)
involving specified vehicle components, a fire, or a rollover.
    As described more fully in the section, below, EWR requirements
vary somewhat depending on the nature of the reporting entity (motor
vehicle manufacturers, child restraint system manufacturers, tire
manufacturers, and other equipment manufacturers) and the annual
production of the entity. The EWR information NHTSA receives is stored
in a database, called Artemis, which also contains additional
information (e.g., domestic and foreign recall details and complaints
filed directly by consumers) related to defects and investigations.
    The Early Warning Division of the Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of early warning data and
documents submitted by manufacturers. Using its traditional sources of
information, such as consumer complaints from vehicle owner
questionnaires (VOQs) and manufacturers' own communications, and the
additional information provided by EWR submissions, ODI investigates
potential safety defects. These investigations often result in recalls.
    In the last several years, the agency published two amendments to
the EWR regulations. On May 29, 2007, NHTSA made three changes to the
EWR rule. 72 FR 29435. First, the definition of ``fire'' was amended to
more accurately capture fire-related events. 72 FR 29443. Second, the
agency eliminated the requirement to produce hard copies of a subset of
field reports known as ``product evaluation reports.'' Id. Last, the
agency limited the time that manufacturers must update a missing
vehicle identification number (VIN)/tire identification number (TIN)
information or a component in a death or injury incident to a period of
no more than one year after NHTSA receives the initial report. 72 FR
29444. On December 5, 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) which was followed in September 2009 by a final rule
that modified the reporting threshold for light vehicle, bus, medium-
heavy vehicle (excluding emergency vehicles), motorcycle and trailer
manufacturers' quarterly EWR reports. See 73 FR 74101 (December 5,
2008); 74 FR 47740, 47757-58 (September 17, 2009). This rule further
required manufacturers to submit EWR reports with consistent product
names from quarter to quarter and amended part 573 Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to require tire manufacturers
to provide tire identification number ranges for recalled tires. 74 FR
47757-58. The final rule also stated that manufacturers must provide
the country of origin for a recalled component. Id. Last, the rule
amended the definition of ``other safety campaign'' to be consistent
with the definition of ``customer satisfaction campaign.'' Id.
    The September 2009 rule did not address several proposals in the
preceding December 2008 NPRM. Those proposals sought to require light
vehicle manufacturers to include the vehicle type in the aggregate
portion of their quarterly EWR reports, report on use of electronic
stability control in light vehicles, and specify fuel and/or propulsion
systems when providing model designations. Id. The agency decided to
issue a separate rulemaking addressing some of the foregoing proposals
to obtain more meaningful comments. See 74 FR 47744. This final rule
addresses those proposals raised in the December 2008 NPRM not resolved
by the September 2009 final rule.
    Under the early warning reporting requirements of the TREAD Act,
NHTSA is required to issue a rule establishing reporting requirements
for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to
enhance the agency's ability to carry out the provisions of Chapter 301
of Title 49, United States Code, which is commonly referred to as the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act or as the Safety Act. See
49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(1), (2). Under one subsection of the early warning
provisions, NHTSA is to require reports of information in the
manufacturers' possession to the extent that such information may
assist in the identification of safety-related defects and which
concern, inter alia, data on claims for deaths and aggregate

statistical data on property damage. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A)(i); see
also 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(C). Another subsection, specifically
30166(m)(3)(B), authorizes the agency to require manufacturers to
report information that may assist in the identification of safety
defects. Specifically, section 30166(m)(3)(B) states: ``As part of the
final rule . . . the Secretary may, to the extent that such information
may assist in the identification of defects related to motor vehicle
safety in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in the United
States, require manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment to report, periodically or upon request of the Secretary,
such information as the Secretary may request.'' This subsection
conveys substantial authority and discretion to the agency. Most EWR
data, with the exception of information on deaths and property damage
claims, is reported under regulations authorized by this provision.
    The agency's discretion is not unfettered. Per 49 U.S.C.
30166(m)(4)(D), NHTSA may not impose undue burdens upon manufacturers,
taking into account the cost incurred by manufacturers to report EWR
data and the agency's ability to use the EWR data meaningfully to
assist in the identification of safety defects.
    The EWR regulation divides manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment into two groups with different reporting
responsibilities for reporting information. The first group consists
of: (a) Larger vehicle manufacturers that meet certain production
thresholds that produce light vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles,
medium-heavy vehicles, trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) tire
manufacturers that produce over a certain number per tire line; and (c)
all manufacturers of child restraints. Light vehicle, motorcycle,
trailer and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers except buses and
emergency vehicles that produced, imported, offered for sale, or sold
5,000 or more vehicles annually in the United States are required to
report comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. Emergency vehicle
manufacturers must report if they produced, imported, offered for sale,
or sold 500 or more vehicles annually and bus manufacturers must report
if they produced, imported or offered for sale, or sold 100 or more
buses annually in the United States. Passenger car tire, light truck
tire and motorcycle tire manufacturers that produced, imported, offered
for sale, or sold 15,000 or more tires per tire line are also required
to provide comprehensive quarterly reports. The first group must
provide comprehensive reports every calendar quarter. 49 CFR 579.21-
579.26. The second group consists of all other manufacturers of motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (i.e., vehicle manufacturers that
produce, import, or sell in the United States fewer than 5,000 light
vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles (excluding emergency vehicles and
buses), motorcycles, or trailers annually; vehicle manufacturers that
produce, import, or sell in the United States fewer than 500 emergency
vehicles annually; vehicle manufacturers that produce, import, or sell
in the United States fewer than 100 buses annually; manufacturers of
original motor vehicle equipment; and manufacturers of replacement
motor vehicle equipment other than child restraint systems and tires).
The second group has limited reporting responsibility.\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

    The TREAD Act also amended 49 U.S.C. 30166 to add a new subsection
(l) to address reporting of foreign defects and other safety campaigns
by vehicle and equipment manufacturers. This section requires
manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment to
notify NHTSA if the manufacturer or a foreign government determines
that the manufacturer should conduct a recall or other safety campaign
on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is identical
or substantially similar to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment offered for sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(l).
Subsection (l) does not define ``identical'' or the term
``substantially similar.'' Under the TREAD Act's foreign defect
reporting provisions, NHTSA is to specify the contents of the
notification. Id.
    On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published regulations implementing
foreign motor vehicle and product defect reporting provisions of the
TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(l). 67 FR 63295, 63310; 49 CFR part 579,
subpart B. The Foreign Defect Reporting rule requires certain motor
vehicle

manufacturers and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report
information and submit documents to NHTSA when a manufacturer or a
foreign government determines that a safety recall or other safety
campaign should be conducted in a foreign country for products that are
identical or substantially similar to vehicles or items of equipment
sold or offered for sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(l)(1) &
(2). To assist the agency's program implementation, manufacturers must
submit an annual list of substantially similar vehicles to NHTSA. 49
CFR 579.11(e). This list is due by November 1 of each year.
Manufacturers may submit their substantially similar vehicle list by
mail, facsimile or by email. 49 CFR 579.6(a). NHTSA offers a Microsoft
Excel template on its Web site http://www.safercar.gov/ that
manufacturers can download and use to upload their substantially
similar lists directly to NHTSA's Artemis database. The vast majority
of manufacturers submit their substantially similar list by uploading
the template directly to the agency.

C. Domestic Safety Defect and Noncompliance Recalls

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, manufacturers are required
to provide notice to the Secretary if the manufacturer determines that
a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect
related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable
motor vehicle safety standard. The regulation implementing the
manufacturer's requirement to provide notice to NHTSA is located at 49
CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports,
which, among other things, requires manufacturers to provide reports
(commonly referred to as Defect or Noncompliance reports, or part 573
Information Reports, as the case may be) to NHTSA on defects in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and noncompliances with motor
vehicle safety standards found in 49 CFR part 571.
    Section 573.6 specifies the information that manufacturers are
required to submit to the agency and Sec.  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, Sec.  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 Sec.  573.7.
    The Safety Act also requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or
items of motor vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA and owners and
purchasers of the vehicle or equipment if the manufacturer determines
that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a
defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c).
Manufacturers must provide notification pursuant to the procedures set
forth in section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section 30119 sets forth the
contents of the notification, which includes a clear description of the
defect or noncompliance, the timing of the notification, means of
providing notification and when a second notification is required. 49
U.S.C. 30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 confers considerable
authority and discretion on NHTSA, by rulemaking, to require additional
information in a manufacturer's notification. See 49 U.S.C.
30119(a)(7).
    The conduct of a recall notification campaign, including how and
when owners, dealers, and distributors are notified, is addressed by
regulation in 49 CFR part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification.
Section 577.5 specifies required content and structure of the owner
notifications. Section 577.13 specifies required content for dealer and
distributor notifications. Section 577.7 dictates the time and manner
of these notifications.
    In July 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century (MAP-21) Act. See Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (July
6, 2012). Sections 31301 of the MAP-21 Act mandates that the Secretary
require that motor vehicle safety recall information be made available
to the public on the Internet, and it provides authority to the
Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct a rulemaking to require each
manufacturer to provide its safety recall information on a publicly
accessible Internet Web site. Under section 31301(a), Congress has
directed the Secretary to require motor vehicle safety information be
available on the Internet, searchable by vehicle make, model and VIN,
preserves consumer privacy and includes information regarding
completion of the particular recall. Section 31301(b) authorizes the
Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct a rulemaking requiring
manufacturers to provide the safety recall information in paragraph (a)
on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Specifically, section
31301(a) states:

    (a) VEHICLE RECALL INFORMATION.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall require that
motor vehicle safety recall information--
    (1) be available to the public on the Internet;
    (2) be searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle
identification number;
    (3) be in a format that preserves consumer privacy; and
    (4) includes information about each recall that has not been
completed for each vehicle.

    Section 31301(a) did not directly speak to the mechanism for
implementing its requirements, leaving the agency to use its discretion
to fill any ambiguity. Paragraph (a) is silent with respect to who is
required to make safety recall information available, which
manufacturers are subject to the requirement, the types of safety
information to be made available, and how and when the information is
placed on the Internet.
    Paragraph (b) provides the Secretary with the authority to conduct
a rulemaking to provide the information in subsection (a) and provides
limited instructions as to the scope of any such rulemaking and sharing
such information with automobile dealers and consumers. Section
31301(b) states:

    (b) RULEMAKING.--The Secretary may initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to require each manufacturer to provide the information
described in subsection (a), with respect to that manufacturer's
motor vehicles, on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. Any
rules promulgated under this subsection--
    (1) shall limit the information that must be made available
under this section to include only those recalls issued not more
than 15 years prior to the date of enactment of [MAP-21].
    (2) may require information under paragraph (1) to be provided
to a dealer or an owner of a vehicle at no charge; and
    (3) shall permit a manufacturer a reasonable period of time
after receiving information from a dealer with respect to a vehicle
to update the information about the vehicle on the publicly
accessible Internet Web site.

    Similar to paragraph (a) of 31301, paragraph (b) vests considerable
discretion in the agency to conduct a rulemaking to meet the statutory
goals of section 31301.

    The MAP-21 Act further specifies that a manufacturer's filing of a
bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States
Code, does not negate its duty to comply with, among other things, the
defect and noncompliance notification and reporting obligations, and
the requirement to provide a free remedy, under the Safety Act.

II. Summary of the NPRM

A. Summary of Our Proposals Affecting Early Warning Rule and Foreign
Defect Reporting

    The early warning reporting (EWR) rule requires certain
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to submit
information to NHTSA. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. The EWR rule divides
vehicle manufacturers into different segments based upon weight or
vehicle application. These segments are light vehicles, buses,
emergency vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, motorcycles and trailers.
The proposed amendments to the EWR rule concern light vehicles, buses,
emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles.
    We proposed requiring light vehicle manufacturers to report vehicle
type in their death and injury and aggregate reports. Under the current
EWR rule, light vehicle manufacturers submit vehicle type as part of
production reports, but do not report vehicle types in either their
death and injury reports or their aggregate reports. We proposed a
solution to this inconsistency.
    We proposed to require reporting on additional components in the
light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle, and medium-heavy vehicle
component categories and to amend the light vehicle, bus, emergency
vehicle, and medium-heavy vehicle reporting templates.
    We proposed to add a requirement that light vehicle manufacturers
provide the fuel and/or propulsion system type for nine (9) different
fuel and/or propulsion system types. In addition, the proposal would
add definitions for each fuel and/or propulsion system.
    Furthermore, we proposed to add four (4) new light vehicle and one
(1) new medium-heavy vehicle component reporting categories. The new
light vehicle component categories are electronic stability control,
forward collision avoidance, lane departure prevention, and backover
prevention; the new medium-heavy vehicle component category is
stability control/roll stability control. We also proposed new
definitions for each of these components. We also proposed to correct a
minor inconsistency in light vehicle manufacturer reporting of vehicle
types to capture several recently introduced light vehicle
technologies.
    We proposed and requested comments on amendments to a
manufacturer's reporting requirements related to safety recalls and
other safety campaigns in foreign countries under subpart B of part
579. We proposed to standardize the manner of submitting annual lists
of substantially similar vehicles under Sec.  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).

B. Summary of Our Proposals Affecting Safety Recalls Reporting,
Administration, and Execution

    The NPRM proposed changes and additions to the regulations
governing recalls, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and
Noncompliance Notification.
    We proposed a number of measures in an effort to improve the
information the agency receives from recalling manufacturers concerning
the motor vehicles and equipment they are recalling and the plans for
remedying those products, in addition to distribution of that
information to the affected public.
    First, for motor vehicle recalls, and in accordance with the MAP-21
Act, we proposed to adopt regulations that would implement MAP-21's
mandate that the Secretary require motor vehicle safety recall
information be made available to the public on the Internet, be
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification number
(VIN), be in a format that preserves consumer privacy, and includes
information about each recall that has not been completed for each
vehicle. See MAP-21 Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.  31301, 126 Stat 405,
763 (July 6, 2012). The Secretary was given the discretion to engage in
rulemaking to require a manufacturer to provide the information above
on vehicles it manufacturers on a publicly accessible Internet Web
site. Id. at section 31301(b). We proposed to exercise the authority
given the Secretary in sections (a) and (b), not only to meet the Act's
mandate, but to increase the numbers of motor vehicles remedied under
safety recall campaigns which, in turn, will serve to reduce the risk
of incidents, as well as injuries or fatalities, associated with
vehicles that contain safety defects or fail to meet minimum FMVSS.
    To meet MAP-21, and increase the number of motor vehicles remedied
under safety recall campaigns, the agency proposed to offer vehicle
owners and prospective purchasers an enhanced vehicle recalls search
tool through its Web site, www.safercar.gov, that would go beyond the
current functionality to search by specific make and model vehicle, and
would offer a VIN-based search function that would report back whether
a vehicle has been subject to a safety recall, and whether that vehicle
has had the manufacturer's free remedy performed.
    In order to gather the information necessary for us to provide this
enhanced functionality, we proposed to require larger volume, light
vehicle manufacturers to submit the VINs for vehicles affected by a
safety recall to NHTSA. We further proposed to require these
manufacturers to submit to NHTSA recall remedy completion information
on those vehicles, again supplied by VIN, that would be updated at
least once daily so that our search tool had ``real time'' information
that could inform owners and other interested parties if a recall is
outstanding on a vehicle. In our effort to improve the information
received from recalling manufacturers, and so NHTSA could better
understand and process recalls, we proposed to require certain
additional items of information from recalling manufacturers. These
additional items included an identification and description of the risk
associated with the safety defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS, and,
as to motor vehicle equipment recalls, the brand name, model name, and
model number, of the equipment recalled. We also proposed that
manufacturers be prohibited from including disclaimers in their part
573 information reports.
    Similarly, as part of our effort to ensure we are apprised of
information related to safety recalls, we proposed that manufacturers
update their Part 573 Reports with information missing from the initial
report, or newly updated information, within five working days of
learning the information. We also proposed that, within 90 days of a
recall's available remedy, the manufacturer review its Part 573 Report
for completeness and accuracy and supplement or amend it as necessary
to comply with part 573.
    We proposed to require manufacturers to submit through a secure,
agency-owned and managed web-based application, all recall-related
reports, information, and associated documents. We explained that we
believed this

would improve our efficiency and accuracy in collecting and processing
important recalls information and then distributing it to the public.
It would also reduce a current and significant allocation of agency
resources spent translating and processing the same information that is
currently submitted in a free text fashion, whether that text is
delivered via a hard copy, mailed submission, or delivered
electronically through email.
    In order to ensure that owners are promptly notified of safety
defects and failures to meet minimum safety standards, we proposed to
specify that manufacturers notify owners and purchasers no later than
60 days after a safety defect or noncompliance decision is made. In the
event the free remedy is not available at the time of notification, we
proposed that manufacturers be required to issue a second notification
to owners and purchasers once that remedy is available.
    In an effort to encourage owners to have recall repairs made to
their vehicles and vehicle equipment, we proposed additional
requirements governing the content and formatting of owner notification
letters and the envelopes in which they are mailed in an effort to
improve the number of vehicles that receive a remedy under a recall. We
proposed that all letters include ``URGENT SAFETY RECALL'' in all
capital letters and in an enlarged font at the top of those letters,
and that for vehicle recalls, the manufacturer place the VIN of the
owner's vehicle affected by the safety defect or noncompliance, within
the letter. To further emphasize the importance of the communication,
and to distinguish it from other commercial communications, we proposed
that the envelopes in which the letters are mailed be stamped with the
logos of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
U.S. Department of Transportation, along with a statement that the
letter is an important safety recall notice issued in accordance with
Federal law.
    Lastly, we proposed to add a requirement for manufacturers to
notify the agency in the event they file for bankruptcy. We explained
that this requirement would help us preserve our ability to take
necessary and appropriate measures to ensure recalling manufacturers,
or others such as corporate successors, continue to honor obligations
to provide free remedies to owners of unsafe vehicle and equipment
products.

III. Scope of This Rulemaking

    Today's final rule is limited in scope to amendments to the EWR
requirements, the foreign defect reporting rule, and to the
requirements associated with safety recall reporting, administration,
and execution as delineated in parts 573 and 577 of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Apart from the following changes noted
below in the summary section, NHTSA intends to leave the remaining
current EWR, foreign defect reporting regulations, and safety recalls
implementing regulations parts 573, 577 and 579 unchanged.

IV. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM

A. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM as to the Early Warning
Reporting and Foreign Defect Reporting Proposals

     We are implementing a one-year lead time from the date
this final rule is published for the electronic-only submission of
annual substantially similar vehicle listings, Sec.  579.11(e).
     We are subdividing the light vehicle Service Brakes
component code into Foundation Braking Systems and Automatic Brake
Controls.

B. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM as to the Domestic Safety
Recall Proposals

     We did not adopt the requirement that large, light vehicle
manufacturers report recalled VINs to NHTSA.
     We adopted the alternative proposal that requires large,
light vehicle manufacturers to provide a VIN-based recall lookup tool
on their Internet Web sites that meets certain performance-based
criteria.
     We did not adopt the prohibition against the use of
disclaimers, or language that disavows the presence of a safety-related
defect or noncompliance, in a manufacturer's Part 573 Information
Report.
     We did not adopt the requirement that manufacturers review
their Part 573 Information Reports for completeness and accuracy 90-
days after launching the recall remedy campaign.
     We adopted with slight changes the requirement that a
manufacturer update and submit new information to its Part 573
Information Report. Today's rule requires updates and new information
within five (5) working days from when the manufacturer has confirmed
the accuracy of the information, which is different than our proposal
to require that the information be submitted within five (5) days of
becoming available.
     We adopted the proposal to mandate the use of a specific
label on the envelopes containing the manufacturer's notification to an
owner, but agree with commenters that manufacturers have the discretion
to decide where to place the label on the front of the envelope.
     We adopted the proposal to require vehicle manufacturers
to place the vehicle's VIN in the notification to that vehicle's owner,
but leave to their discretion where in that letter to place this
information.

V. Agency Response to Comments and Decisions

A. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Early Warning Reporting and
Foreign Defect Reporting

    NHTSA received comments from 12 parties on proposals affecting EWR
and Foreign Defect Reporting. These commenters were Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (the Advocates), Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (the Alliance), American Honda Motor Co, Inc. (Honda),
American Suzuki Motor Co, Inc (Suzuki), Association of Global
Automakers, Inc. (Global), Center for Auto Safety (CAS), Ford Motor
Company (Ford), Law Office of Hogan Lovells US LLP representing
Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA), Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
(MEMA), National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM), Quality
Control Systems Corporation (QCSC), and Toyota Motor North America,
Inc. (Toyota). The specific comments of each entity will be discussed
below for each topic to which they responded.
1. 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.
    The following sections discuss the new EWR component codes that
were proposed in the NPRM, the comments we received to each and our
response.
2. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers producing
5,000 or more vehicles annually to submit production information
including the make, the model, the model year, the type, the platform
and the number of vehicles produced. 49 CFR 579.21(a). Manufacturers
must provide the production as a cumulative total for the model year,
unless production of the product has ceased. Id. While light vehicle
manufacturers are required to provide the type of vehicle with their
production, they are not required to provide the type of vehicle when
they submit death and injury data pursuant to 49 CFR 579.21(b) or with
aggregate data under 49 CFR 579.21(c).\3\ The NPRM proposed to amend
Sec.  579.21(b) and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to
provide the type of vehicle when they submit their death and injury
data and aggregate data under those sections. We also proposed to amend
the light vehicle reporting templates for the EWR death and injury and
aggregate reports to reflect adding vehicle type and provided exemplar
light vehicle templates in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For light vehicles, type means the certification by a
manufacturer pursuant to 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7) as to whether a vehicle
is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe this change will assist ODI to identify potential
safety-related defects by making light vehicle EWR data received
internally consistent. Because light vehicle manufacturers providing
quarterly EWR reports are not obligated to provide the vehicle type in
their death and injury and aggregate EWR reports, NHTSA is unable to
distinguish whether the light vehicle death and injury and aggregate
data are associated with certain vehicle types such as passenger cars,
multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks or incomplete vehicles. Without
being able to isolate this information by vehicle type, ODI cannot
match aggregate data accurately with production data.
    The Advocates, the Alliance, Ford, and Toyota commented
specifically on the proposal to amend Sec.  579.21(b) and (c) to
require light vehicle manufacturers to include the type code in the
death/injury and aggregate data. The Advocates supported the addition
and concurred with the agency's position that this would impose minimal
burden on manufacturers. Toyota indicated that they could determine the
vehicle type from vehicle model; while Ford indicated that including
the type code would increase the number of records in their submissions
from 18 to 33 (but did not object to the addition). The Alliance did
not object to the proposal and believes the related costs are
relatively modest. However, the Alliance offered the opinion, and Ford
concurred, that creating a vehicle type ``UN'' for ``unknown'' may lead
to a conflict in Artemis because there will be no production volume for
model line ``unknown.'' The agency notes that a vehicle type ``UN''
will be an exception case for Death/Injury records where the VIN is not
available; likewise, these records would be excluded from the data
consistency check. The same goes for aggregate records--``unknown''
records will be excluded for data validation. This is similar to the
current processing for Child Restraints in the case where the
Production Year is 9999 (or unknown).
    We believe the addition of the vehicle type code in paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) of Sec.  579.21 will improve our ability to identify
potential safety-related defects. No commenters objected to the
inclusion of the type code in light vehicle reporting. Accordingly,
NHTSA will adopt this proposal as written in the NPRM, with minor
revisions to the wording of the regulatory text that do not change the
meaning of the proposed text.
3. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
    Currently, the EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers
to report the required information by make, model and model year. 49
CFR 579.21(a), (b)(2), (c). The rule also requires light vehicle
manufacturers to subdivide their EWR death and injury and aggregate
reports by components. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c). Reporting by make,
model and model year and component categories have remained unchanged
since the EWR regulation was published in July 2002. Since that time,
manufacturers have introduced new technologies to meet the demand for
more fuel efficient vehicles. Currently, light vehicle manufacturers do
not identify the specific fuel or propulsion system used in their
vehicles. As use of these new technologies expands, we are concerned
that the current EWR reporting scheme is not sufficiently sensitive to
readily identify vehicles with different fuel and/or propulsion system
types. For example, some models, such as the Toyota Camry, are offered
with both conventional and hybrid propulsion systems.
    The recently issued Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
will spur manufacturers to increasingly produce fuel efficient vehicles
employing various technologies. Following the direction set by
President Obama on May 21, 2010, NHTSA and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have published final rules for Fuel Economy and Greenhouse
Gas emissions regulations for model year (MY) 2017-2025 light-duty
vehicles. NHTSA believes that to meet the new CAFE standards,
manufacturers will increase their production of light vehicles with
alternate fuel and/or propulsion systems that could raise new safety
issues not currently accounted for in the EWR regulatory scheme.
    Therefore, as the automotive industry begins to introduce and
produce more vehicles with new propulsion systems,

NHTSA believes now is an opportune time to start collecting EWR
information to assist in identifying potential defects in these new
systems. As currently configured, the EWR reporting structure may mask
potential problems with these systems. NHTSA is currently unable to
discern from EWR data whether a particular vehicle problem is unique to
a particular fuel or propulsion system. Currently, problems with a
particular make and model that may be unique to one fuel and/or
propulsion system could be readily distinguished from problems that may
apply to that make and model regardless of the fuel and/or propulsion
system. The final rule will permit NHTSA to investigate safety concerns
in many makes and models with similar fuel and/or propulsion systems
(e.g., a battery problem in a plug-in electric vehicle or a hydrogen
fuel cell problem that may extend to similarly equipped vehicles).
    We believe that adding the appropriate fuel and/or propulsion
system type to EWR will enhance NHTSA's ability to identify and address
potential safety defects related to specific fuel and/or propulsion
systems.
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to amend 49 CFR 579.21(a), (b),
and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to provide the type of
fuel and/or propulsion system when they submit their EWR data and to
update accordingly the light vehicle reporting templates for the EWR
production information, death and injury, and aggregate data to reflect
adding fuel and/or propulsion type. Also, a new definition of ``fuel
and/or propulsion system type'' was proposed for 49 CFR 579.4: ``fuel
and/or propulsion system type means the variety of fuel and/or
propulsion systems used in a vehicle, as follows: compressed natural
gas (CNG); compression ignition fuel (CIF); electric battery power
(EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle (HEV); hydrogen
based power (HBP); plug-in hybrid (PHV); and spark ignition fuel
(SIF).'' Manufacturers would identify the fuel and/or propulsion system
on the EWR template in the appropriate field. In addition to amending
Sec.  579.4 to add ``fuel and/or propulsion system type'', the NPRM
proposed definitions for each of the following fuel or propulsion
system types:
     Compressed natural gas (CNG) means a system that uses
compressed natural gas to propel a motor vehicle.
     Compression ignition Fuel (CIF) means a system that uses
diesel or any diesel-based fuels to propel a motor vehicle. This
includes biodiesel.
     Electric battery power (EBP) means a system that uses only
batteries to power an electric motor to propel a motor vehicle.
     Fuel-cell power (FCP) means a system that uses fuel cells
to generate electricity to power an electric motor to propel the
vehicle.
     Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a system that uses a
combination of an electric motor and internal combustion engine to
propel a motor vehicle.
     Hydrogen based power (HBP) means a system that uses
hydrogen to propel a motor vehicle through means other than a fuel
cell.
     Plug-in hybrid (PHV) means a system that combines an
electric motor and an internal combustion engine to propel a motor
vehicle and is capable of recharging its batteries by plugging in to an
external electric current.
     Spark ignition fuel (SIF) means a system that uses
gasoline, ethanol, or methanol based fuels to propel a motor vehicle.
    We anticipated that the majority of vehicles produced by
manufacturers would be captured by our proposed definitions. However,
our proposal included the term ``other'' (OTH) to identify vehicle
models employing a fuel and/or propulsion system that is not enumerated
in our other proposed fuel and/or propulsion types. For example, the
Dual fuel F-150 would be classified as ``Other,'' since it is propelled
by either gasoline or CNG.
    The proposed fuel and/or propulsion system types included most of
the alternative fuels found in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), as amended, 49 U.S.C. 32901, but not all. Due to differences in
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and EWR programs, our
proposed categories of fuel/propulsion systems differ slightly from the
alternative fuels listed in section 32901. While EPCA encourages
manufacturers to produce vehicles using alternative fuels, the EWR
program has a different focus. In the context of alternative fuel
vehicles, that focus is on potential problems that may occur within a
fuel or propulsion system, which requires the agency to differentiate
between propulsion technologies that are, or will be, available to
consumers. For EWR purposes, there is no technical hardware difference
between a vehicle with a spark ignition fuel engine capable of using a
variety of fuels, such as ethanol or gasoline, or a mixture of fuels,
such as E85 (ethanol/gasoline mixture) and a vehicle with a spark
ignition fuel engine using gasoline only. While such a fuel distinction
is appropriate for the CAFE program, EWR will not benefit from that
level of detail because the specific fuel type being used will be
unknown.
    The Advocates, the Alliance, and Toyota commented on the addition
of the fuel and/or propulsion type EWR codes. The Advocates supported
the proposal, but asked that the agency address, in a separate
rulemaking, linking the new EWR codes to the ``affected parts'' choices
in the Vehicle Owners Questionnaire. The Advocates also indicated a
desire to see a list of failure modes that can be chosen for each
component. These comments are not within the scope of the current
rulemaking and will not be addressed by this final rule. The Alliance
and Toyota did not object to the addition of fuel and/or propulsion
type codes, but sought clarification on how to report fuel and/or
propulsion types that are unknown. The Alliance suggested a default of
SIF, or whatever the base model version is for a model line not
manufactured with a SIF system. Toyota stated that whatever approach is
chosen for reporting an unknown must be simple enough to accomplish
through, ``automatic means by way of programmatic mapping.'' The agency
responds that if the attribute is ``unknown'' the entire record will be
excluded from the data consistency check (validation). We expect that
this will be a very infrequent occurrence. The EWR processing staff can
always contact the manufacturer to seek clarification, if needed.
    Based upon the foregoing and the lack of objection to our proposal
from commenters, this final rule amends Sec.  579.4 by adding the
proposed definitions for ``fuel and/or propulsion system type'' in
addition to Sec.  579.21(a), (b)(2), and (c) as proposed. We have
deleted the phrase ``in the context of reporting fuel and/or propulsion
system type'' in the new definitions, however, as it is redundant to
the introductory language in Sec.  579.4(c) that states ``The following
terms apply to this part.'' For clarity, we have changed the ``hydrogen
based power (HBP)'' type to hydrogen combustion power (HCP). This
change makes a clearer differentiation between this type and a fuel-
cell power propulsion type. Also for clarity, we added the phrase ``but
is not capable of recharging its batteries by plugging in to an
external electric current'' to the definition of Hybrid electric
vehicle (HEV) to make a clearer differentiation between this type and
the Plug-in hybrid type.
4. 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,
NHTSA proposed to add component codes for ESC, FCA, LDP and Backover
Prevention to the EWR reporting for light vehicles and ESC/RSC for
buses, emergency vehicles, and medium and heavy vehicles. Each of these
new component codes and the comments regarding each are addressed
below.
    Several commenters did not comment on the new component codes
individually, but as a group. These commenters were CAS, Ford, Global,
and Honda. CAS did not offer comments on the proposed codes, but asked
for an expansion of the current codes for air bags. This request is
outside the scope of the current rulemaking. Ford believes that the
proposed codes are not appropriate for EWR and would require manual
review of tens of thousands of EWR reports per quarter. Ford supports
alternatives proposed by the Alliance.
    Global believes that reporting problems will be caused by the fact
that several systems share components stating:

    If an incident or claim implicates a shared component, the
proposal states that the manufacturer should report data based upon
the functionality of the component as reported in the underlying
claim. Given the complex nature of these systems, it is not clear
that assignment of the cause of an incident or claim to one of these
systems will be possible. In addition, in order to deal with this
type of situation, additional technical resources would be required
to assess ``functionality'' and changes to manufacturer data systems
will be required. These actions will require time and resources to
complete. To accomplish the proposed narrowing of categories,
manufacturers would be saddled with the substantial burden of
performing individualized reviews of warranty claims in certain
instances. For example, manual reviews of claims involving brake
malfunction would be required to definitely determine whether a
claim is related to the electronic stability control system. This
type of activity would be unduly burdensome from both a time and
resource perspective. This issue will be exacerbated if NHTSA
continues to add new codes for emerging technology in the future.

Global also believes that NHTSA has underestimated the costs and
burdens aspect of the proposal. Suzuki stated that it participated in
the development of, and supports, the Global comments. Toyota stated
that the new component categories raise ``significant problems in
implementation'', noting the same concerns as the Alliance.
    Honda commented that it has, ``no immediate concerns'' regarding
introduction of the proposed new codes and provided a one-time cost
estimate totaling 1,350 person hours and $135,000 to implement new
codes.
    The above general comments will be addressed in the following
sections. Detailed response to comments on cost can be found in Section
VIII.F.1.b.
    QCSC did not address our proposed categories, but proposed its own:
unintended acceleration, floor mats, and dividing air bags and seat
belts into more defined sub-groups. This comment is outside the scope
of this rulemaking and will not be addressed in this notice.
    i. Stability Control Systems
    In the NPRM, we proposed to add a new component code for light
vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles and medium/heavy vehicles in 49 CFR
579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR 579.22(b)(2) for ESC.\4\ As discussed in the
NPRM, ESC is now required for all light vehicles and presents known
benefits for heavy vehicles. As a result, the number of vehicles using
ESC is increasing rapidly and potentially could include the great
majority of the vehicle fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to ESC, RSC systems are increasingly installed on heavy
trucks. RSC detects a high lateral acceleration condition that could
lead to a truck rolling over, and intervenes by automatically, applying
the vehicle's brakes and/or reducing engine power and applying the
engine retarder. We proposed to combine ESC and RSC in one EWR
component code for medium and heavy trucks and proposed the new Heavy
Vehicle Aggregate Template (Appendix B).
    The EWR regulation currently does not have a specific component for
ESC or RSC issues. See 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 579.22(b)(2). Light
vehicle manufacturers report ESC issues under ``03 service brake
system'' and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers report stability
control issues under ``03 service brake, hydraulic'' and ``04 service
brake, air'' because those definitions include stability control. As a
result, potential stability control issues may be masked within the
broader service brake category, making NHTSA unable to examine and
detect potential safety concerns that may be associated directly with a
vehicle's stability control system. The agency believes that stability
control issues are likely to increase as vehicle manufacturers add
stability control to their fleets. In our view, it is important to
capture EWR data on this key safety component, supplementing NHTSA's
traditional screening methods to assist in identifying potential safety
issues sooner. Adding an ESC component category to light vehicles and a
combined ESC/RSC component category to buses, emergency vehicles and
medium-heavy vehicles reporting categories will allow NHTSA to capture
data on this mandatory system on light vehicles and new system on
medium-heavy trucks and analyze stability control data for potential
defects.
    The Alliance commented on the new ESC component code. While the
Alliance agrees that ESC is very important for safety and has high
market penetration, it opposed a new component code. It stated, ``The
primary problem in attempting to create a component category
exclusively of ESC is that it will often be very difficult for
manufacturers to determine whether claims, consumer complaints, and
other aggregate data that might relate to ESC actually do involve
ESC.'' The Alliance believes, ``. . . it would be extremely difficult
and costly--and would require a tremendous amount of additional time--
for manufacturers to attempt to disaggregate items involving ESC from
the ``brake'' category, particularly with respect to claims, consumer
complaints, and warranty claims.'' The Alliance pointed out that it
believes that consumers often do not know, ``whether the perceived
problem is related to ESC, as opposed to other handling or brake
issues,'' and that warranty claims may be impossible to assign to ESC
because, ``ESC systems share components and software with other vehicle
systems.'' The Alliance noted that NHTSA issued a legal interpretation
in 2003 that manufacturers' reporting must be based on the face of the
claim or complaint and not on any manufacturers' analysis or
investigation of the claim or complaint.\5\ It also notes that the

manufacturers have instituted long standing practices for processing
claims and complaints based on this interpretation and, ``it would be
extremely difficult, costly, and burdensome to attempt to separate
reports of ESC issues from reports involving associated systems that
utilize the same components.'' The Alliance then offered, as an
alternative to the proposed ESC code, that the current ``service brake
system'' category be divided into two new categories: ``foundation
braking systems'' and ``automatic brake controls'', and proposed
definitions for these terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter to Mr. Robert Strassburger from Jacqueline Glassman,
Chief Counsel, March 25, 2003, stated in part, ``Reporting is to be
based on the information in the complaint or claim, rather than on
the manufacturer's assessment. Even if the manufacturer disagrees
with the assertions of the consumer/claimant after conducting its
analysis, the manufacturer must still report the complaint or
claim.'' See http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/interpretations.cfm
and chose Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers March 25, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency acknowledges that in some instances consumers may not
perceive stability control problems during a crash or will be unable to
distinguish stability control problems from problems with other
components. This may occur when a consumer communicates through a
complaint or a property damage claim to the manufacturer. Although
there may be some of these instances, the agency believes that
misidentification of stability control complaints will be rare. The
agency receives vehicle owner questionnaires (consumer complaints)
reporting potential problems with ESC. Furthermore, consumer complaint
data represent only 5 percent and property damage claims represent less
than 1 percent of the EWR aggregate data for the service brake
component.
    The bulk of the EWR data for the service brake component consists
of warranty claims and field reports. Manufacturers likely have the
capability to identify and report specific problems associated with
stability control in warranty claims and field reports. Manufacturers
of light vehicles have elaborate warranty systems that capture
information about discrete components and service codes. Manufacturers
also track issues identified by their representatives in the field. The
agency still believes that with the ability to identify specific issues
through service codes and field inspections, manufacturers should be
able to code stability control issues appropriately. However, the
agency did not intend to change its long-standing interpretation
regarding coding claims and complaints. For such items, the
manufacturer should use the information reported to the manufacturer by
the consumer as the basis for its EWR codes. In the proposal, we
intended that manufactures would, where possible on the face of the
claim or complaint, consistent with our interpretation, categorize
complaints and claims using the proposed new ESC code. Where that is
not possible, codes would be assigned as appropriate by the
manufacturer.
    Adding a new component to the light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle
and medium-heavy vehicle EWR reporting is likely to create a one-time
cost for manufacturers to amend their reporting template and revise
their software systems to appropriately categorize the stability
control system data. We do not believe this cost will be substantial or
pose an undue burden on manufacturers.
    In the agency's view, as discussed above, ESC is an important,
required, component for light vehicle control and a malfunction can
have an impact on vehicle safety. Capturing data on this new technology
will assist the agency in identifying potential problems sooner.
Because the number of vehicles with ESC is increasing rapidly and all
light vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2011 must have ESC, we
believe that it is appropriate for the agency to start collecting EWR
data on this specific component.
    The final rule will adopt, as we proposed, the ESC definition found
in 49 CFR 571.126.S4 for light vehicles. The final rule will define ESC
for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles as a system
that has all the following attributes:
     Augments vehicle directional stability by applying and
adjusting the vehicle brake torques individually at each wheel position
on at least one front and at least one rear axle of the vehicles to
induce correcting yaw moment to limit vehicle oversteer and to limit
vehicle understeer;
     Enhances rollover stability by applying and adjusting the
vehicle brake torques individually at each wheel position on at least
one front and at least one rear axle of the vehicle to reduce lateral
acceleration of a vehicle;
     Is computer-controlled with the computer using a closed-
loop algorithm to induce correcting yaw moment and enhance rollover
stability;
     Has a means to determine the vehicle's lateral
acceleration;
     Has a means to determine the vehicle's yaw rate and to
estimate its side slip or side slip derivative with respect to time;
     Has a means to estimate vehicle mass or, if applicable,
combination vehicle mass;
     Has a means to monitor driver steering input;
     Has a means to modify engine torque, as necessary, to
assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle and/or
combination vehicle; and
     Can provide brake pressure to automatically apply on a
truck tractor and modulate the brake torques of a towed semi-trailer.

As noted above, the agency does not intend for manufacturers to change
long-standing practices and processes to implement the use of the new
ESC code, but simply to use the code when, a warranty claim or field
report indicates a concern with stability control and a claim or
consumer compliant, on its face, indicates a concern with stability
control systems. In cases where ESC is not obvious code(s) should be
assigned as appears appropriate.
    The agency believes dividing the current ``service brake system''
category into two new categories: ``foundation braking systems'' and
``automatic brake controls'', has merit, in addition to the new ESC
code. This issue is discussed further in subsection iii, below.
    For heavy vehicles, the agency proposed that issues with either an
ESC or RSC system be reported in a combined ESC/RSC category. RSC has
similar attributes related to ESC. The NPRM proposed that RSC be
defined as a system that has the following attributes:
     Enhances rollover stability by applying and adjusting the
vehicle brake torques to reduce lateral acceleration of a vehicle;
     Is computer-controlled with the computer using a closed-
loop algorithm to enhance rollover stability;
     Has a means to determine the vehicle's lateral
acceleration;
     Has a means to determine the vehicle mass or, if
applicable, combination vehicle mass; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The NPRM used ``the means'' in this element. We have changed
it in the final rule for consistency with the other elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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
     Can provide brake pressure to automatically apply on a
truck tractor and modulate the brake torques of a towed semi-trailer.
    There were no comments on the combined ESC/RSC category for buses,
emergency vehicles, and medium and heavy vehicles. The only comment
regarding heavy vehicle ESC was made by MEMA, who requested that the
agency use, for heavy vehicles, the definition of ESC it proposed to
the agency's NPRM on heavy vehicles ESC (Docket NHTSA-2012-0065 item
0041, August 21, 2012). The agency does not believe the definition for
ESC as it

applies to heavy vehicles should be changed before the final rule is
issued on that subject.
    As proposed, this final rule amends 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add ESC
to the list of components in that section and amends 49 CFR
579.22(b)(2) to the combined ESC/RSC component code to the list of
components in that section. It also amends 49 CFR 579.4(b) to add the
regulatory definition of light vehicle ESC found in 49 CFR
571.126.S4,\7\ adds the definition of ESC and RSC for buses, emergency
vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicles as proposed, and amends the
definition of ``service brake system'' to remove stability control from
that definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Forward Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure Prevention
    An FCA system monitors and detects the presence of objects in a
vehicle's forward travel lane and alerts the driver by means of an
audible and/or visual warning of a potential impact with the object.
FCA systems seek to warn drivers of stopped, decelerating or slower
moving vehicles in the vehicle's lane of travel in order to avoid
collisions. Some FCA systems may also assist with driver's braking or
automatically brake to avoid collisions. An LDP system warns a driver
that the vehicle is exiting a travel lane and may automatically provide
steering input to assist the driver to maintain lane position.
    NHTSA is encouraging deployment of these important crash avoidance
systems by notifying consumers which vehicles offer them through the
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Starting with model year 2011
vehicles, NHTSA recommends ESC, Forward Collision Warning and Lane
Departure Warning systems that pass the NCAP performance tests on the
Web site www.safercar.gov. The agency believes that adding these
technologies in NCAP will increase consumer awareness of these
beneficial technologies and spur market demand.
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed two new categories, FCA and LDP,
and definitions for each:
    Forward collision avoidance system means a system that:
     Has an algorithm or software to determine distance and
relative speed of an object or another vehicle directly in the forward
lane of travel; and
     Provides an audible, visible, and/or haptic warning to the
driver of a potential collision with an object in the vehicle's forward
travel lane.
    The system may also include a feature:
     Pre-charges the brakes prior to, or immediately after, a
warning is issued to the driver;
     Closes all windows, retracts the seat belts, and/or moves
forward any memory seats in order to protect the vehicle's occupants
during or immediately after a warning is issued; or
     Applies any type of braking assist or input during or
immediately after a warning is issued.
    Lane departure prevention system means a system that:
     Has an algorithm or software to determine the vehicle's
position relative to the lane markers and the vehicle's projected
direction; and
     Provides an audible, visible, and/or haptic warning to the
driver of unintended departure from a travel lane.
    The system may also include a feature that:
     Applies the vehicle's stability control system to assist
the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after the
warning is issued;
     Applies any type of steering input to assist the driver to
maintain lane position during or immediately after the warning is
issued; or
     Applies any type of braking pressure or input to assist
the driver to maintain lane position during or immediately after the
warning is issued.
    We chose to make the EWR categories broader than the warning
systems indicated in NCAP to attempt to capture advanced systems are
they are implemented.
    The Alliance and MBUSA commented on these two new categories. As
with ESC the Alliance commented that ``it would be extremely difficult
and costly for manufacturers to even attempt to separate reportable EWR
items into these two categories.'' The Alliance further stated, ``While
FCA and LDP have the potential to enhance motor vehicle safety, their
contribution is not as significant as that of other components and
systems currently specified in the regulation. As currently
implemented, they are `driver assistance systems', not `safety
systems.''' The Alliance believes that these two categories of systems
are, ``not `mature', and they have not significantly penetrated the
market.'' MBUSA commented that the definitions of FCA and LDP are too
broad. It believes that ``different components and subsystems will be
captured by different OEMs depending on the technology used'' by each
individual manufacturer and therefore the agency will not be able to
compare reported rates among manufacturers.
    The agency believes that these emerging crash avoidance
technologies have been in development for some time and are appearing
in the current light vehicle fleet. As these new technologies are
implemented and demand increases, we are concerned that the EWR
component categories currently in use will not capture them. NHTSA
believes it is appropriate to add these technologies to EWR now. As
discussed above for ESC, NHTSA intends that the manufacturers use the
FCA and LDP code where, on its face, it is indicated by the claim or
complaint. Otherwise these claims and complaints should be treated and
processed as they are currently. The agency intends that systems that
warn the driver of a possible crash situation or lane departure be
treated along with systems that take action to intervene to prevent a
crash or lane departure. This will allow the category to serve EWR as
these systems mature and become even more prevalent.
    Accordingly, this final rule adopts the FCA and LDP EWR reporting
categories and their definitions as proposed.
iii. Segregation of ``Service Brakes'' Category Into Two New
Categories, ``Foundation Brake Systems'' and ``Automatic Brake
Controls''
    In its comments to the NPRM the Alliance offered an alternative to
our new category ESC in which the current Service Brakes category for
light vehicles could be segregated into Foundation Brakes and Automatic
Brake Controls. The Alliance said, in part, ``we understand the
agency's desire to assure that the large number of reports of problems
with respect to the foundation brakes do not inhibit its ability to
identify problems with electronic/automatic brake components.'' We have
carefully considered this approach and, while we are implementing the
ESC, FCA and LDP categories, we believe the Alliance's suggestion to
divide the

Service Brake category still has merit. As discussed in the section on
ESC above, the agency believes that manufacturers are capable of
assigning the new ESC category to almost 95 percent of the data
required to be reported in EWR involving those systems. However, given
that we do not want manufacturers to change the methods and processes
by which they make the category assignments, dividing the Service Brake
category as the Alliance suggested will assist the agency to also
capture those reports. Therefore, in this final rule the current light
vehicle Service Brakes category will be divided into discrete braking
systems under the following two definitions:
    Foundation Brake System means all components of the service braking
system of a motor vehicle intended for the transfer of braking
application force from the operator to the wheels of a vehicle,
including components such as the brake pedal, master cylinder, fluid
lines and hoses, brake calipers, wheel cylinders, brake discs, brake
drums, brake pads, brake shoes, and other related equipment installed
in a motor vehicle in order to comply with FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, 122, or
135 (except equipment relating specifically to the parking brake). The
term includes all associated switches, control units, connective
elements (such as wiring harnesses, hoses, piping, etc.), and mounting
elements (such as brackets, fasteners, etc.).
    Automatic Brake Controls means systems and devices for automatic
control of the brake system, including but not limited to, brake-assist
components (vacuum booster, hydraulic modulator, etc.), antilock
braking systems, traction control systems, enhanced braking systems.
The term includes all associated switches, control units, connective
elements (such as wiring harnesses, hoses, piping, etc.), and mounting
elements (such as brackets, fasteners, etc.).
    Only the Automatic Brake Control definition differs from the
Alliance's proposed definition. For clarity, we added ``brake-assist
components.''
iv. Backover Prevention
    In addition to adding component categories for ESC, FCA, and LDP,
the NPRM proposed adding a component category for systems designed to
mitigate backover crashes for light vehicles in 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2). We
proposed to define a backover prevention system as one that has ``a
visual image of the area directly behind a vehicle that is provided in
a single location to the vehicle operator and by means of indirect
vision.'' We proposed this new category because in 2010 the agency
estimated that, on average, there are 292 fatalities and 18,000
injuries (3,000 of which NHTSA estimates are incapacitating) resulting
from backover incidents every year. Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000
injuries were attributed to backover incidents involving light vehicles
under 10,000 pounds.\8\ NHTSA also estimates that about 20 percent of
MY 2010 light vehicles are equipped with some sort of image-based
backover prevention system.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These estimates are from a December 7, 2010 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.
    \9\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Backover Crash
Avoidance Technologies, NPMT FMVSS 111, NHTSA, Office of Regulatory
Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, Nov. 2010, Docket NHTSA-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only the Alliance commented specifically on the proposed backover
prevention category. The Alliance opposes the adoption of such a
category because it believes, ``there is clearly no need for a separate
category at the present time, before the agency has even adopted a
final rule, and given the four-year lead time following promulgation of
such a rule before it would be fully effective.'' The Alliance noted
the same problem would exist with the backover prevention category as
it described for ESC, FCA and LCP, namely, that many elements of the
system are shared with other systems. The Alliance further stated that
it, ``understands NHTSA's concern that various manufacturers code
reports about problems with backover systems in various existing
component categories,'' and suggested, as an alternative to the
proposed new category, to revise the definition of the ``visibility''
category ``to require all such reports to be included in that
category.'' The Alliance also objected to the use of the term
``backover prevention system'', since ``the systems in use today and
those that would be required under the proposed amendment to FMVSS No.
111 are more properly characterized as `rearward visibility systems,'
since few, if any, of those systems would actually operate
independently to `prevent' a backover.''
    The agency believes that, regardless of what form such a final rule
might take, the number of vehicles utilizing some form of an image-
based backover prevention system will increase over time. In fact, the
agency is adding rearview camera systems as an allowed technology in
its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) while the final rule is being
completed. These systems are likely to take on different trade names
and incorporate additional functionality not present today. We would
like the category to be able to accommodate current and future systems.
    The agency believes, as with the other new categories, the
manufacturers can capture those claims, notices, warranty claims,
complaints, property damage claims or field reports that, on the face,
are linked to a Backover Prevention category. The Alliance admits that
manufacturers could identify these reports to place them in a revised
Visibility category. The agency prefers to use the term ``backover
prevention'', which includes systems that warn the driver as well as
those that take action to prevent a backover, so that the new category
captures newer, active, systems as they emerge. The agency believes
these measures will enhance its ability to identify and address
potential safety defects related to this important safety system that
is already in the market.
    After reviewing the comments received, the agency has decided to
adopt the Backover Prevention category as proposed in the NPRM. This
final rule will amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add backover prevention
systems to the list of components in this section and will amend the
definition of ``visibility'' to remove any reference to exterior view
image-based systems for light vehicles.
5. EWR Reporting Templates
    The NPRM proposed to amend the EWR light vehicle production, death
and injury, and aggregate reporting templates used by light vehicle
manufacturers for their quarterly EWR submissions to add the new
vehicle type, fuel and/or propulsion system type, ESC, FCA, LDP, and
Backover Prevention system components. The NPRM likewise proposed
amending the EWR bus, emergency vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle
reporting templates to accept the new ESC/RSC component code.
    Only the Alliance commented on the proposal to amend the reporting
templates and that comment was only in the context that they objected
to the addition of the new component codes that the templates would
serve to report.
    Based upon the foregoing, we believe the addition of the new
component codes that we are adopting today is necessary. Accordingly,
this final rule adopts the changes to the light vehicle EWR reporting
templates as proposed, with slight modifications to accommodate the new
component codes for Foundation Brake System and Automatic Brake
Controls. Similarly,

this final rule adopts the proposed change to the Heavy Vehicle
Aggregate Template to add the new ESC/RSC component code.
6. 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). Currently,
manufacturers may submit this list to NHTSA by mail, facsimile or by
email. 49 CFR 579.6. When a manufacturer notifies NHTSA of a safety
recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country, the agency
searches the manufacturer's substantially similar list for vehicles in
the U.S. that may contain a similar problem as identified in the
foreign recall or campaign.
    Unlike EWR reports, manufacturers are not required to upload their
substantially similar vehicle list (SSVL) directly to ODI's Artemis
database. However, most vehicle manufacturers in practice do upload
their SSVLs directly to Artemis through the agency's secure Internet
server. The NPRM proposed to require that manufacturers upload their
SSVLs to Artemis because submissions by mail, facsimile, or email
cannot be uploaded to Artemis and are not readily searchable. Having
the lists in Artemis would make it easier for ODI to match vehicles
involved in a recall in another country to vehicles sold, or offered
for sale, in the United States.
    The Alliance, Ford and Global submitted comments concerning the
proposal to amend Sec.  579.6(b) to require that the annual SSVL under
Sec.  579.11(e) be uploaded directly to the Artemis database. Ford and
the Alliance indicated that the proposed 180-day lead time is
insufficient. They stated that creating complex corporate software
approval processes needed to protect intellectual property from
unauthorized release would require a lead time of at least12 months.
Global indicated that the reporting burden could be reduced by defining
the Foreign Markets data field as geographic regions (Asia, Europe,
etc.). Global also requested that the list not be made public until the
end of the affected model year, as the list may contain models that are
planned for introduction during the upcoming year. The agency notes
that although the width of the current FOREIGN--MARKETS data field on
the Excel SSVL template is not defined, this field will allow an entry
of up to 2,048 characters (per record). This level of detail is
provided in the XML Schema definitions available on the safercar.gov
Web site (http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/XMLSchema/SubstantiallySimilarVehicles.xsd). Examples of commonly accepted
entries are: (1) CANADA, EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA, SOUTHEAST ASIA,
CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA, OCEANA; (2) CANADA, EUROPE, ASIA; (3) EU,
RUSSIA AND CIS, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, OCEANIA, AFRICA, ASIA.
Therefore, we believe no new geographic region definitions are needed.
    After review and consideration of the comments, this final rule
provides a lead time of one year from the date of the publication of
this rule. This will be reflected in the effective date to implement
the new EWR component codes that is one year after the publication date
of this final rule.

B. Decisions and Responses to Comments on Domestic Safety Recalls
Requirements

    NHTSA received comments from twenty-two (22) parties for proposals
affecting safety recalls reporting, administration, and execution.
These commenters were Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the
Alliance), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota), The Truck &
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), Safety Research & Strategies,
Inc. (SRS), The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Inc. (RVIA),
Quality Control Systems Corporation (QCSC), Harley Davidson Motor
Company (Harley-Davidson), Ford Motor Company (Ford), American Suzuki
Motor Corporation (Suzuki), R.L. Polk & Co. (Polk), The Law Office of
Stephen Selander, PLLC (Selander), American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(Honda), The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), The Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), The National Association of
Trailer Manufacturers (NATM), The Automotive Recyclers Association
(ARA), The Center for Auto Safety (CAS), The Motorcycle Industry
Council, Inc. (MIC), The Association of Global Automakers, Inc. (Global
Automakers), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (the Advocates),
Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG (MBUSA), and The Juvenile Products
Manufacturer's Association (JPMA).
    For summary purposes, the term ``industry commenters'' refers to
vehicle and equipment manufacturers and the trade associations that
represent them, such as the Alliance and Global Automakers. The term
``safety advocate commenters'' refers to organizations such as CAS and
the Advocates that help promote automotive and highway safety. In this
section, we provide a general summary of those comments.
1. Public Availability of Vehicle Recall Completion Information
    We received comments on our proposal to require large, light
vehicle (including motorcycle) manufacturers to submit VIN information
on vehicles for which those manufacturers conduct safety recalls, and
to submit daily updates on changes in recall remedy status as to each
VIN, to NHTSA and in support of our development of an enhanced recalls
search tool on our Web site, www.safercar.gov. Comments were also
received on our alternative proposal to not require these manufacturers
to submit this information or daily updates to NHTSA, but to require
that they offer comparable utility on their Web site or on a third-
party Web site. Industry commenters opposed our primary proposal and
supported the alternative whereas some safety advocate commenters said
our primary proposal was sufficient. Some commenters did not favor
either proposal, but offered suggestions and commentary focused on the
breadth of coverage and functionality of any recall search tool we
would require.
    After carefully considering the comments, we are proceeding with
the agency's alternative proposal that requires large, light vehicle
(including motorcycle) manufacturers to provide a recalls lookup tool,
by VIN, on their own Web sites or third party Web sites. We have
specified certain performance-based criteria for these sites to ensure
consistent and reliable search results to address a wide range and age
of light motor vehicles and motorcycles. A summary of the comments
received on this proposal, as well as our reasoning for our various
decisions and requirements, follows below.
i. Who Is Required To Provide Publicly Accessible Vehicle Safety Recall
Completion Information
    We received a number of comments, both favorable and unfavorable,
on the proposal to apply the provision to high

volume, light vehicle manufacturers, and not others.
    QCSC, the Advocates, and CAS objected to our application of MAP-
21's requirements concerning public availability of safety recall
information to only large, light vehicle manufacturers. They maintained
that by its own terms, the statute requires the publication of recall
information searchable by make, model, and VIN, on the Internet for all
motor vehicles. They emphasized that the statute requires that the
information made publicly available must include, ``information about
each recall that has not been completed for each vehicle.'' The words
``about each recall,'' and ``for each vehicle,'' they maintain, are
unlimited in scope and necessarily mean each manufacturer must provide
this information for each recall and every vehicle subject to a recall
that has not been completed. According to the Advocates, in making all
unremedied recalled vehicles subject to the information disclosure, the
statute is directly requiring the vehicle manufacturer to supply the
information for its recalled vehicles to the agency. The Advocates
disagreed with the agency's interpretation that the statute's silence
about whom must supply information leaves the agency discretion to
decide to whom it applies. With regard to the VINs associated with
recalled vehicles that are unremedied, they argued that Congress has
decided that vehicle manufacturers must provide that information to be
placed on the Internet and be publicly accessible.
    The Advocates further commented that neither part 573 nor part 577
indicate that some manufacturers must comply with recall requirements,
while others do not, and that recall requirements are not dependent
upon particular classes, types, or volumes of vehicles produced by
manufacturers. They noted that the purpose of part 573, to facilitate
notification of owners, applies to manufacturers of cars, trucks and
motorcycles, incomplete and complete vehicles, as well as importers.
Thus, according to the Advocates, the agency's regulations do not
support a limitation on the types of manufacturers that must provide
the safety recall information required under MAP-21.
    CAS opined that smaller manufacturers may, in fact, be more prone
to defects and recalls. In support, CAS referenced a report it
submitted to NHTSA 35 years ago in which it identified 27 defects in
various British Leyland cars that CAS says resulted in over a dozen
recalls. The group also commented that our proposal is inconsistent
with the agency's position that it needs to be able to better monitor
new and emerging technologies that are likely to be used by smaller
companies like Fisker and Tesla.
    The Advocates challenged the parallel we drew to the Early Warning
(EWR) regulation that limits certain requirements based on manufacturer
annual production. They noted that Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 relates
to consumer information on the repair status of recalled vehicles which
is separate from the non-recall incident data captured through EWR. The
Advocates believe that Congress intended all motor vehicles with
outstanding recalls to be publicly searchable by VIN, not just the
vehicles of the largest manufacturers as determined by annual
production.
    MEMA and EMA agreed with our proposal to exclude medium and heavy
vehicles. Both concurred with our rationale that owners and operators
of these vehicles interface directly with vehicle manufacturers through
their field personnel, to remedy all types of service issues, including
safety recalls. Accordingly, there was little likelihood that a recalls
search tool would be of value to this community and have a positive
impact on completion rates for recalls concerning medium heavy
applications.
    We have considered the comments and decline to expand the category
of vehicle manufacturers required to provide VIN and Internet-based
recalls search functions at this time. Section 30301(a) of MAP-21 does
not specify which manufacturers are subject to making safety recall
information available on the Internet. Moreover, section 30301(b)
states that the Secretary ``may'' initiate a rulemaking.
    The Advocates and CAS did not dispute our analysis in the NPRM that
the light vehicle manufacturers that meet our production thresholds
manufactured (or imported) comprise the vast majority of all vehicles
recalled. We have since conducted a ten-year analysis including recalls
through December 2012, the last full year that data are available, and
that analysis produced results evidencing that this same class of
manufacturers manufactured almost 95 percent of the vehicles recalled.
    The Advocates and CAS comments did not address or consider the
benefits that reasonably could be anticipated from requiring other
manufacturers to post recall information on the Internet. They did not
provide any information on de minimus manufacturers.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking would have applied a VIN
submission requirement to manufacturers of 25,000 or more light
vehicles, or manufacturers of 5,000 or more motorcycles manufactured
for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for
introduction in interstate commerce or imported into the United States
annually. 77 FR 55621. Significantly, the notice of proposed rulemaking
did not address manufacturers other than the light vehicle and
motorcycle manufacturers it identified. 77 FR 55621. Other vehicle
manufacturers apparently did not perceive themselves as potentially
covered by the rule and did not comment. At this juncture, we do not
have sufficient information to require other manufacturers to post
recall information on the Internet. There would be questions, among
others, about possible exemptions of de minimus manufacturers, updating
frequency, and possible vendor services.
    At this time, we are not making a decision on manufacturers other
than those covered by the notice of proposed rulemaking. We are
considering publishing another notice of proposed rulemaking and
developing a record upon which to determine how to proceed with regard
to the other vehicle manufacturers. We may consider, for example, how
VIN look-up tools could benefit owners of other types of vehicles.
    We reiterate that we are not prohibiting or preventing other
manufacturers from providing an Internet based recalls search function.
Any manufacturer may voluntarily provide this service, and some already
do. Smaller manufacturers like Ferrari, Maserati, and Lotus now provide
a VIN-based recalls lookup service through the Carfax Web site, yet
they would not be required to do so by this rule. Although not required
to do so, NHTSA encourages all manufacturers producing annually fewer
than 25,000 vehicles (or fewer than 5,000 motorcycles) to create their
own VIN-based recalls lookup service, and to provide for the electronic
transfer of their recall information to NHTSA's www.safercar.gov Web
site as specified in Sec.  573.15(b)(12).
    For the above reasons, the rule adopted today will apply to
manufacturers of 25,000 or more light vehicles, or manufacturers of
5,000 or more motorcycles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for
sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce
or imported into the United States annually as originally proposed.
Rather than adjust the text of Sec.  573.6(c)(3) as proposed in the
NPRM, we will add a new Sec.  573.15 to accommodate today's
requirement, as well as the performance criteria for the

manufacturer search tools that are discussed infra.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We mistakenly included a revision to section 573.4 in the
regulatory text portion of our NPRM. This revision purported to add
definitions of ``light vehicle'' and ``motorcycle'' to the
definitions in that section. As we discussed in the preamble to the
NPRM, see 77 FR at 55621, n.19, we are defining ``light vehicle'' as
it is currently defined in 49 CFR 579.4, and ``motorcycle'' as it is
defined in 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Decision To Adopt Alternative Proposal To Require Covered
Manufacturers To Provide Vehicle Safety Recall Completion Information
on Their Own or a Third Party's Internet Site
    Industry commenters were decidedly against our primary proposal to
require submission of VINs to NHTSA, and then to require daily updates
to reflect a changed recall remedy status as to those VINs. These
commenters said our proposal was costly, burdensome, subject to data
integrity issues and service outages, and unnecessarily duplicative of
the services many manufacturers already provide.
    The Alliance commented that NHTSA's estimate of $51,200, for each
large, light vehicle manufacturer to set up a VIN reporting system, was
grossly underestimated. The Alliance calculated that it would cost each
affected manufacturer $167,393.75 to setup the required computer
systems. Based upon the Alliance's numbers, when multiplied by the
number of light vehicle manufacturers affected by the proposal, the
cost would total $4,854,418.75, more than three times NHTSA's one-time
cost estimate of $1,484,800. The Alliance challenged our assessment
that there would be no on-going costs to manufacturers to maintain
their reporting systems, and said that based on information from their
members, the average on-going cost per year would be $34,061.25 per
manufacturer. Cumulatively, the on-going cost would be almost $1
million per annum. The Alliance further objected to our proposal
because it did not consider the cost to tax-payers of establishing and
maintaining this data system that would be required to accept hundreds
of thousands of VINs, integrate substantial numbers of changes that the
system receives each day, recover from inevitable service disruptions
that will occur, and assure all the information is current and
accurate.
    By contrast, the same large, light vehicle manufacturers would each
save an average of $71,773.75 under the alternative proposal, according
to the Alliance. The Alliance multiplied this figure across the
manufacturers that the NPRM identified would be affected by our
proposal, for a combined savings in excess of $2 million. The Alliance
also noted that each manufacturer could save approximately $30,000 in
on-going costs per year, for a cumulative of almost $900,000 annually,
if the alternative proposal was adopted.
    MIC, MBUSA, Ford, and Honda also commented that the proposal was
unjustifiably costly and inefficient. Honda estimated that the daily
transfer of VINs between Honda and NHTSA would cost Honda a one-time
approximate cost of $40,000, excluding labor costs. Polk commented on
the complexity of learning the databases of all the vehicle
manufacturers, and that Polk has a staff approaching 500 to operate its
business of processing state title and registration data. Toyota said
our proposal would require the submission of massive amounts of vehicle
information that would be costly, unduly burdensome, impractical, and
not advance safety goals.
    Toyota said that it has operated a VIN-based recalls lookup tool
for years and operation, data integrity, and security concerns are
presented with the hosting of this type of service. Ford's comments
aligned with Toyota's, and identified that extreme weather events, such
as Hurricane Sandy, might interrupt the data connection between NHTSA
and multiple manufacturers. Toyota commented that NHTSA would need to
implement auditing safeguards to ensure NHTSA's database and Toyota's
database are properly synchronized. Toyota explained that it utilizes
one database that is accessed by multiple applications, and that this
reduces the risk of syncing multiple databases, unlike the system NHTSA
proposed.
    Global Automakers commented that it would take NHTSA a considerable
amount of time and funding to create, maintain, and operate a database
of the size the agency proposed, and all of which would be a
duplication of databases already in operation by many manufacturers and
third party Web sites. The association further commented that smaller
manufacturers often rely on recall completion data to be aggregated
from multiple independent regional distributors, and that a requirement
to update VIN repair status on a daily basis would be very burdensome
and complicated for these manufacturers.
    For its part, MEMA commented that although the impact and cost
associated with our proposal do not directly impact its members as
suppliers to vehicle manufacturers, those costs and burdens do have an
indirect impact. It concurred with the vehicle manufacturers and their
associations that the costs and burdens of our proposal were
unnecessarily high, understated, and inconsistent with the concern in
the GAO report that developing a centralized VIN database would require
significant additional resources to fully implement. The group also
made note that this report said ``most of the public are not aware of
the existence of the SaferCar.gov Web site.'' Therefore, MEMA
concluded, under a common sense, consumer point-of-view, the odds were
that an individual would first visit the manufacturer's Web site before
visiting www.safercar.gov for recalls information.
    The industry commenters favored the alternative proposal to have
light vehicle manufacturers host a VIN look-up on their or a third
party's Web site and identified a number of benefits that the
alternative proposal offered over the primary proposal.
    The Alliance and Global Automakers echoed MEMA's comments saying
that consumers are more familiar with the Web sites of their vehicle
manufacturer, as opposed to NTHSA's Web site. Polk commented that
between its Carfax Web site and the Web sites of the vehicle
manufacturers, tens of millions of consumers are served each year.
    The Alliance commented that manufacturer-hosted recall tools would
provide more wide-ranging benefits by offering emissions recalls
information, customer satisfaction campaigns, service campaign
information, dealer locations, and vehicle service history. The
Alliance noted that the availability of this other information could
increase recall completion rates since dealers will remedy outstanding
safety recalls when a consumer visits their dealer for some other
service since the manufacturers' systems of records as to uncompleted
recalls are shared with their respective dealerships.
    Global Automakers, Ford, and Harley-Davidson both offered similar
comments. Global Automakers noted that service campaigns and emissions
recalls could also be offered through manufacturer Web sites. Global
Automakers also added that typical consumers who need VIN-based recall
results likely also need a complete ``snapshot'' of their vehicle
history. Harley-Davidson added that remedy process information, dealer
location and scheduling details could also be offered. Ford noted that
it currently offers open safety recalls information well beyond the 24
month timeframe contemplated in our primary proposal, open safety
recalls older than 24 months, emissions recalls, and customer
satisfaction

programs searchable by VIN on its Internet site.
    Toyota commented that they could offer more than 24 months of
recall information if allowed to provide this service through their own
and currently operational Web site. MBUSA also noted that its Web site
has recall information going back to 1976, significantly more than the
24 months of recall history that NHTSA proposed. The Alliance also
suggested that instead of requiring just 2 years of historical VIN
data, NHTSA instead request at least 2 years of data.
    MBUSA, in favor of the alternative proposal, commented that
manufacturer Web sites are inherently more accurate as vehicle
manufacturers are the original source of both VIN information and
recall completion status.
    However, not all commenters were in favor of manufacturer-operated
VIN look-up tools. The Advocates commented that any alternative method
to satisfy Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 cannot be achieved with
independent tools developed by the manufacturers as they could not
``include information about each recall that has not been completed for
each vehicle.'' The Advocates noted that NHTSA could require
manufacturers to satisfy this MAP-21 requirement, but only in addition
to the NHTSA operated tool. The Advocates further commented that
allowing manufacturers to operate their own VIN look-up tools would, in
addition to being redundant to NHTSA's tool under the original
proposal, also require NHTSA to constantly monitor their Web sites for
adequacy and content.
    We have considered the comments from industry and other groups. We
have decided that the consumer awareness and recalls completion
benefits we expected to achieve from our proposal can reasonably be
expected to be achieved through the alternative proposal on which we
requested comment. Further, the industry comments indicate that the
alternative proposal is less costly and burdensome to the covered
manufacturers since many of the manufacturers already have their own
recalls look-up services online. It is also more cost effective and
less burdensome to the tax-payers to adopt the alternative proposal,
since the agency would not need to utilize its resources to support a
VIN look-up feature that relies upon the manufacturer's datasets. The
alternative proposal also reduces the risk of data inaccuracy and
inconsistency that accompanies self-contained data systems.
Accordingly, after consideration of the comments, we believe it more
prudent to finalize the alternative proposal rather than our primary
proposal.
    We considered the industry commenters' criticisms that our
estimations on costs were unreasonably low and short-sighted. While
some comments did not provide support for their statement on costs or a
break-down of stated criticism, we understand that requiring
manufacturers to rearrange their data systems to report to NHTSA in the
manner specified in our primary proposal, and then to provide an
updated report daily, involves cost and burdens, and that the cost and
burden are greater than what they are presently to provide owners with
a recalls look-up service (or would be, in the case of manufacturers
that do not presently have a recalls look-up service online).
    We considered comments from the Alliance, Global Automakers, Polk,
Harley-Davidson, Ford, Toyota, and other industry commenters, regarding
the Web site features manufacturers can or do presently offer
consumers. We agree that the information on activities beyond safety
recalls that manufacturers can offer, and many already do, support the
alternative proposal. We agree that information available to owners on
these other activities could support NHTSA's goal of enhancing safety
recalls completion rates. It is conceivable that an owner would respond
to a non-safety recall notification or information, bring their vehicle
to a dealership to have the work performed, and then any outstanding
safety recall work could be performed at that time pursuant to typical
manufacturer practices and policies of requiring dealers to check for
outstanding safety recalls whenever a vehicle visits a dealership.
    We agree that it is sensible for an owner or consumer to visit the
manufacturer's Web site to learn more about a non-safety recall
campaign or advisory on a vehicle, and then while searching be informed
about an outstanding safety recall and take action to have their
vehicle remedied. We considered the comments from MEMA, the Alliance,
Global Automakers, and Polk regarding consumer's familiarity with
manufacturer Web sites. We are persuaded by the commenters that the Web
sites of large, light vehicle manufacturers are likely the first place
an owner would look for VIN-specific information. For example, Toyota
noted that their VIN search tool received 36,600 visits over a 7-month
period, and over 70,000 visits in October 2012 alone. We also
understand the risk that if an owner who does not find safety recall
information on the manufacturer's site may not look further believing
that only the manufacturer would have this information. This could be a
consequence if we only required a manufacturer to provide VIN-specific
information to us and did not require manufacturers to develop and
maintain their own VIN-lookups.
    We also considered the Advocates' technical argument that NHTSA can
only require manufacturers to operate their own VIN look-up tools in
conjunction with a NHTSA-operated tool. The Advocates claims Section
31301(a) of MAP-21 requires ``the Secretary of Transportation develop
an internet based tool for dissemination of vehicle recall remedy
information.'' We disagree with the Advocates MAP-21 interpretation as
Section 31301(a) clearly states, ``the Secretary shall require that
motor vehicle safety recall information--(1) be available to the public
on the Internet.'' MAP-21 does not expressly require that NHTSA create
a VIN based recalls look-up tool, only that it must ensure this
information is made publicly available.
    Therefore, we have decided to adopt the agency's alternative
proposal to require light vehicle manufacturers that produce over
25,000 vehicles annually to make recall information available through a
VIN look-up tool on their Web sites available to owners and consumers.
The manufacturer's Web sites and VIN look-up tools must meet certain
performance criteria, as discussed below. We are today amending 49 CFR
part 573 to add a new Sec.  573.15 that addresses and implements the
requirements related to manufacturer online look-up tools reporting
uncompleted safety recalls searchable by VIN.
iii. Scope of the Safety Recalls Information That Covered Vehicle
Manufacturers Must Make Available
    In the NPRM, we proposed to require daily updates on changes in
recall remedy status for 10 years from the date a manufacturer first
provided us the VIN list for a particular recall. We explained that we
proposed this time frame because it is consistent with the statutory
limitation on how long a manufacturer can be required to provide an
owner a free remedy. That is, manufacturers are only obligated to
provide a free remedy for vehicles that were bought by the first
purchaser less than 10 calendar years from when the manufacturer
notified its owners of the safety defect or noncompliance. See 49
U.S.C. 30120(g). In addition, we explained that in our experience very
few vehicles can be expected to be presented for remedy under safety

recalls that are more than 10 years old, and that the corresponding
utility and benefit of a look-up service for vehicles more than 10
years old is in our estimation limited.
    We also proposed to require submission of VIN data for every
vehicle covered by a recall filed within 24 months prior to the
effective date of our VIN submission requirement in the NPRM. We
explained that the Act contemplated this very ``look back'' activity
through its express limitation that any implementing rulemaking
conducted ``shall limit the information that must be available . . . to
include only those recalls issued not more than 15 years prior to the
enactment of this Act,'' See MAP-21 Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.
31301(b)(1), 126 Stat 405, 763 (July 6, 2012), and that we were within
our discretion to set a requirement of two years' worth of safety
recall completion information.
    The Advocates disagreed with both of these proposals. As to the
first, they said NHTSA did not present data to support this time limit
and that the agency's rationale is in conflict with its safety mission.
The Advocates argue for an indefinite time frame on grounds it is
foreseeable that every subsequent purchaser and owner has an interest
in knowing and accessing safety recall information, and that the agency
did not explain why such purchasers and owners would not have an
interest. They identify, as we did in a different context in the NPRM,
that manufacturers are required to maintain records reflecting a
vehicle's remedy status indefinitely. They state that by requiring
information to be available about ``each recall that has not been
completed for each vehicle,'' and not specifying any time limitation,
Congress has spoken directly on the issue and we are foreclosed from
setting a time constraint in rulemaking.
    As for the two-year ``look back'' requirement, the Advocates and
CAS asserted that the MAP-21 Act's requirement that recall information
be available about ``each recall that has not been completed for each
vehicle,'' effectively prohibits any limitation. In the Advocates'
view, Section 31301(b) is intended to limit the extent of the burden on
manufacturers required to develop an internet based vehicle recall
status tool, but does not affect or reduce the obligation on the agency
to develop a search tool under Section 31301(a).
    The CAS also objected to a two-year look back provision. The group
commented that by specifying a fifteen year limitation, the MAP-21 Act
contemplated a more far-reaching scope than only two years. They claim
our discretion to limit to two years is not consistent with the Act,
and is not sufficient to inform and protect owners of vehicles of
vehicles recalled as early as June 2010. To exclude thirteen years of
recalls will adversely impact safety and is contrary to the statute
according to the CAS.
    We have considered the Advocates' and CAS's comments but disagree
with their interpretation and perspective of what is or is not required
under the MAP-21 Act. We do not agree that Congress intended that
uncompleted recall remedy status information for the hundreds of
millions of vehicles that have been or will be recalled be continuously
updated, with no end, and a beginning that dates back to the inception
of the construct of safety recalls in 1966.
    In any event, because we have adopted the alternative proposal for
covered manufacturers to make the recall information available on their
Internet Web sites, we have decided to adjust the scope of the
requirement to 15 years. Therefore, manufacturers that are required to
make recall information available on the Internet must provide
information on uncompleted recalls for at least 15 years from the date
they first provided the list of covered VINs to their dealers for a
particular recall.
    Moreover, the proposal for manufacturers to provide data for a
``look-back'' is no longer relevant with the adoption of the
alternative proposal for manufacturers to make the recall information
public. Comments submitted by the manufacturers indicate that meeting
the 15-year requirement we adopt today will not be onerous or
burdensome. In fact, several manufacturers have commented that their
services include recalls completion information for much more than the
previous 24 months, which we originally proposed. Mercedes commented
that their VIN-based recall Web site contains recall information going
back to 1976, well past the 15 years we are establishing today.
    We have amended 49 CFR part 573 as discussed previously to add a
new Sec.  573.15 that includes performance criteria specifying a
minimum 15 year span of coverage.
iv. Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM and Agency Responses
    We received an assortment of comments, suggestions, and questions
that did not fall neatly into the above categories relating to our
primary or alternative proposals and the scope of those proposals. We
summarize and address these points in this section.
    QCSC commented that they did not understand how owners or
prospective purchasers would identify themselves as such through
NHTSA's proposed Web site. The comment is not entirely clear as to the
reason or context for it, but we interpret it as a concern about
personal privacy. In any event, we did not specify a requirement that