[Federal Register: September 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 179)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47740-47758]
[DOCID:fr17se09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

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

Early Warning Reporting Regulations

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Summary of the Final Rule

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

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

III. Background

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule

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

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

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

B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports

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

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

C. Summary of the Proposed Rule

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

D. Overview of Public Comments to the Proposed Rule

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

E. Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule

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

IV. Discussion

A. Statutory Background of Early Warning and Notification Requirements

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

B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting

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

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

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

C. Light Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Trailers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Buses

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

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

F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Motorcycles

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Data Consistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Correction to the Definition of Other Safety Campaign

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

K. Lead Time

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

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

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

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

V. Privacy Act Statement

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

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

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

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Group A Reports

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

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

Group B Reports

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

Computer Maintenance Burden Hours

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

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

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

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

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

G. Executive Order 13045

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

    Today's final rule is not economically significant.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

I. Plain Language

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

J. Data Quality Act

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

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

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS

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

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

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

Sec.  573.6  Defect and noncompliance information report.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) In the case of items of motor vehicle equipment, the
identification shall be by the generic name of the component (tires,
child seating systems, axles, etc.), part number (for tires, a range of
tire identification numbers, as required by 49 CFR 574.5), size and
function if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of
manufacture if available and any other information necessary to
describe the items.
    (iv) In the case of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment in which the component that contains the defect or