[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29435-29444]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29my07-4]
[[Page 29435]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 579
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25653; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AJ94
Reporting of Early Warning Information
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends certain provisions of the early warning
reporting rule published pursuant to the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. The
amendments modify and clarify some of the manufacturers' reporting
requirements under the rule. The rule identifies a subclass of field
reports referred to as product evaluation reports and eliminates the
requirement that manufacturers submit copies of them to the agency,
revises the definition of fire, and limits the time period for required
updates to a few data elements in reports of deaths and injuries.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this final rule is June
28, 2007, except for the amended definition of fire in 49 CFR 579.4(c).
The effective date of the amended definition of fire in 49 CFR 579.4(c)
is for the reporting period beginning on January 1, 2008.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of the
final rule must be received not later than July 13, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
For all issues except legal issues: Ms. Tina Morgan, Office of
Defects Investigation, NHTSA (phone: 202-366-0699) (Fax: 202-366-7882).
For legal issues: Mr. Andrew J. DiMarsico, Office of the Chief
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-5263) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Rule
II. Background
A. The TREAD Act and Review of the Early Warning Program
B. Early Warning Reporting Regulation
C. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
D. Overview of Public Comments to the NPRM
III. Discussion
A. Field Reports
B. Definition of Fire
C. Brake and Fuel System Subcategories
D. Updating of Reports on Death and Injury Incidents
IV. Lead Time
V. Privacy Act Statement
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Regulatory Text
I. Summary of the Final Rule
This rule completes the first phase of NHTSA's review and update of
the early warning reporting (EWR) rule, as required under 49 U.S.C.
30166(m)(5). As explained below, this rule amends certain EWR reporting
requirements. Some changes enhance the early warning program by
eliminating provisions for submissions of information that have not
been valuable to NHTSA in identifying possible defect trends in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Other changes provide for more
focused reporting. Overall, this rule reduces burdens on the agency to
review EWR information that has not advanced our mission in identifying
potential defects and facilitates our focus on more probative
information. It will also reduce the reporting burden on manufacturers.
It does not change the basic structure of the early warning reporting
program.
In general, the EWR rule requires certain vehicle and equipment
manufacturers to submit to NHTSA numerical tallies on property damage
claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims and field reports, which
are collectively known as EWR aggregate data, and copies of certain
field reports. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. As originally promulgated,
the EWR rule excluded a subset of reports known as dealer field reports
from the requirement to submit copies of field reports. Today's rule
denominates another subset of field reports known as ``product
evaluation reports'' and eliminates the requirement that manufacturers
submit copies of them to NHTSA. In general, product evaluation reports
are evaluations by manufacturers' employees who as part of a program
fill out evaluations of the vehicles provided to them for personal use.
Second, this rule amends the definition of fire that applies across
the EWR program. Manufacturers are required to submit aggregate data
subcategorized by specified systems and components and to report
whether it involved a fire. They are also required to provide field
reports involving fires. The regulatory definition of fire includes
fires and precursors of fires and includes illustrative examples of
phenomena within the latter category. The final rule amends the
definition of a fire to eliminate two illustrative examples of
precursors of fire--the terms ``sparks'' and ``smoldering''--and adds
one term, ``melt'', to the definition.
Last, the EWR rule requires manufacturers to submit reports of
incidents involving death or injury, and to update these reports to
include missing vehicle identification numbers (VINs), tire
identification numbers (TINs) and codes on systems or components that
allegedly contributed to the incident and whether the incident involved
a fire or rollover, if this information is later identified by the
manufacturer. This final rule temporally limits the requirement to
submit updates of the missing VIN/TIN or components on incidents of
death or injury to a period of no more than one year after NHTSA
receives the initial report.
II. Background
A. The TREAD Act and Review of the Early Warning Reporting Program
In November 2000, Congress enacted and the President signed the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act, Public Law 106-414, which was, in part, a response to the
controversy surrounding the recall of certain tires that had been
involved in numerous fatal crashes. Up until that time, in its efforts
to identify safety-related defects in motor vehicles and equipment,
NHTSA relied primarily on its analysis of complaints from consumers and
technical service bulletins from manufacturers. Congress concluded that
NHTSA did not have access to data that may have provided an earlier
warning of the safety defects that existed in the tires that were
eventually recalled. Accordingly, the TREAD Act included a requirement
that NHTSA prescribe rules establishing early warning reporting
requirements.
In response to the TREAD Act requirements, NHTSA issued rules (49
CFR part 579; 67 FR 45822; 67 FR 63295) that, in addition to the
information motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers were already
required to provide, required that they provide certain additional
information on foreign recalls and early warning indicators. The rules
require:
[[Page 29436]]
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 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.
EWR reporting was phased in. The first quarterly aggregate EWR
reports were submitted on about December 1, 2003. However, actual
copies of field reports were first submitted on about July 1, 2004. 68
FR 35145, 35148 (June 11, 2003). Accordingly, NHTSA has three years of
experience using the EWR information.
The TREAD Act requires NHTSA periodically to review the EWR rule.
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.
NHTSA is evaluating the EWR rule in two phases. The first phase
covers the definitional issues that are addressed in this document. We
were able to evaluate these issues within a short period of time based
on available information and based on the comments we received in
response to the September 1, 2006 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
71 FR 52040.
The second phase of our evaluation will address issues that require
more analysis than those addressed in the first phase. For example, in
the second phase we expect to evaluate whether there is a need to
adjust any of the reporting thresholds and whether any categories of
aggregate data should either be enhanced or eliminated. With regard to
the specific categories of aggregate data (e.g., data concerning light
vehicles), we expect to address whether the information being provided
has had or may reasonably have value in the future in terms of helping
identify defects and, if not, how the requirement might be adjusted to
provide such value. These tasks will require considerable time, but we
want to ensure that any significant changes in EWR requirements, or
decisions not to make such changes, are based on sound analysis. We
anticipate that the agency's internal evaluation of phase two issues
will be completed in the latter part of 2007 and that a Federal
Register notice (if regulatory changes are contemplated) or a report
containing the agency's conclusions will follow.
B. The Early Warning Reporting Regulation
On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published a rule implementing the early
warning reporting provisions of the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m). 67
FR 45822. The rule requires certain motor vehicle manufacturers and
motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report information and submit
documents to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) that could
be used to identify potential safety-related defects. Thereafter, in
response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA amended the EWR rule.
The EWR regulation divides manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment into two groups with different reporting
responsibilities for reporting information. The first group consists of
(a) larger vehicle manufacturers (manufacturers of 500 or more vehicles
annually) that produce light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles and buses,
trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) tire manufacturers that produce over a
certain number per tire line; and (c) all manufacturers of child
restraints. The first group must provide comprehensive reports. 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.
On a quarterly basis, manufacturers in the first group must provide
comprehensive reports for each make and model for the calendar year of
the report and nine previous model years. Tire and child restraint
manufacturers must provide comprehensive reports for the calendar year
of the report and four previous model 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 on
which manufacturers provide information vary depending upon the type of
vehicle or equipment manufactured.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For instance, light vehicle manufacturers must provide
reports on twenty (20) vehicle components or systems: steering,
suspension, service brake, parking brake, engine and engine cooling
system, fuel system, power train, electrical system, exterior
lighting, visibility, air bags, seat belts, structure, latch,
vehicle speed control, tires, wheels, seats, fire and rollover.
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 (13) 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 (12) 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 (4)
systems or components: buckle and restraint harness, seat shell,
handle and base. Tire manufacturers must report on four (4) 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 provide comprehensive
reports must provide information relating to:
Production (the cumulative total of vehicles or items of
equipment manufactured in the year)
Incidents involving death or injury based on claims and
notices received by the manufacturer
Claims relating to property damage received by the
manufacturer
Consumer complaints (a communication by a consumer to the
manufacturer that expresses dissatisfaction with the manufacturer's
product or performance of its product or an alleged defect)
Warranty claims paid by the manufacturer (in the tire
industry these are warranty adjustment claims)
Field reports (a communication 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).
Most of the provisions summarized above (i.e., property damage
claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims and field reports) require
manufacturers to submit information in the form of
[[Page 29437]]
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, certain manufacturers are
required to submit copies of field reports, except field reports by
dealers.
In contrast to the comprehensive reports provided by manufacturers
in the first group, the second group of manufacturers reports only
incidents relating to death and any injuries associated with the
reported death incident.
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.
C. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The September 1, 2006 NPRM proposed to create an exception to the
requirement to submit copies of field reports that must be sent to
NHTSA. We proposed to eliminate the requirement that manufacturers
would submit a class of field reports denominated as ``product
evaluation reports'' to NHTSA. We also proposed a definition for
product evaluation type field reports. We did not propose to eliminate
the requirement that manufacturers covered by the rule include in their
quarterly submissions on field reports the numbers of product
evaluation field reports received.
We also proposed to amend the regulatory definition of ``fire.''
The regulatory definition of fire includes fires and precursors of
fires and illustrative examples of such precursors. We proposed to
change the definition of a fire to eliminate two illustrative examples
of precursors of fire--the terms ``sparks'' and ``smoldering''--and add
one term, ``melt'', to the definition.
In addition, our NPRM included a proposal to amend the scope of a
category of components addressed in reports the medium-heavy and bus
vehicle category. We proposed to change the category ``Fuel System
Other'' to ``Fuel System Other/Unknown''. We anticipated that this
expanded category would include vehicles for which the type of fuel
system in the vehicle is not known.
Further, for reports on incidents involving a death or an injury,
the NPRM proposed to limit the time period in which manufacturers are
required to update missing vehicle identification numbers (VINs), tire
identification numbers (TINs) and codes indicating systems or
components that allegedly contributed to an incident and whether the
incident involved a fire or rollover, if this information is later
identified by the manufacturer. We proposed to limit the requirement to
submit updates to a period of no more than one year after NHTSA
receives the initial report.
Finally, in the preamble to the NPRM, we noted that the scope of
this rulemaking was limited to those issues proposed by the NPRM and
any logical outgrowths of those proposals. We specifically noted that
we planned to evaluate the reporting threshold issue, and other issues,
in the second phase of our evaluation.
D. Overview of Public Comments to the NPRM
In response to the NPRM, we received comments from several sources.
In general, the industry commenters supported the minor adjustments to
the definitions in the proposal, with some exceptions. Motor vehicle
manufacturers and associated trade organizations that commented were
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), Harley-Davidson Motor
Company (Harley-Davidson), Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), National Truck Equipment
Associated (NTEA) \2\, Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), and
Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NTEA commented that it was concerned about the burden upon
its members who are final stage manufacturers and produce more 500
or more vehicles per year. As we noted in the NPRM, the EWR
reporting threshold is outside the scope of this rulemaking. NTEA
recognized this in its comments. Accordingly, we do not address the
reporting threshold in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also received comments from consultants Safety Research &
Strategies, Inc. (SRS) and Quality Control Systems Corporation (QCS).
While SRS and QCS did not oppose the proposed amendments in the NPRM,
they commented that NHTSA should delay any changes to the EWR rule
until EWR data is available for review by the public.
III. Discussion
A. Field Reports
The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of light vehicles,
medium-heavy vehicles and buses, motorcycles, trailers and child
restraint systems to submit numerical tallies of field reports and
submit copies of certain field reports. 49 CFR 579.21(d), 579.22(d),
579.23(d), 579.24(d) and 579.25(d).\3\ As originally promulgated, the
EWR rule required more extensive reporting of field reports in
aggregate data than submission of copies of field reports to NHTSA. In
particular, within the aggregate data on field reports, manufacturers
are required to report the number of dealer field reports received, but
they are not required to submit copies of dealer field reports. Id. The
EWR definition of dealer field report is a field report from a dealer
or authorized service facility of a manufacturer of motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment. 49 CFR 579.4. Manufacturers are not required
to submit copies of dealer field reports because they are not as
technically rich as field reports from a manufacturer's representative.
67 FR 45822, 45855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The EWR field report definition states: Field report means 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. 49 CFR 579.4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM identified another subcategory of field reports referred
to as ``product evaluations'' that the agency proposed to treat in the
same manner as dealer field reports. We proposed to define product
evaluation report as follows:
Product evaluation report means a field report prepared by, and
containing the observations or comments of, a manufacturer's
employee who is required to submit the report concerning the
operation or performance of a vehicle or child restraint system as a
condition of the employee's personal use of that vehicle or child
restraint system, but who has no responsibility with respect to
engineering or technical analysis of the subjects mentioned in the
report.
Under the proposed approach, manufacturers would report the numbers of
product evaluation reports in the submission of aggregate data on field
reports, but would not submit copies of them. This would ensure that
any significant trends in product evaluation reports would be reflected
in the aggregate data, but would eliminate time-consuming review of
these reports by NHTSA's staff. Our proposal to eliminate product
evaluations was based in large part on our experience with product
evaluation reports. As explained in the NPRM, a substantial majority of
the product evaluations do
[[Page 29438]]
not contain sufficient information to identify a potential safety-
related defect. In the rare instance where a product evaluation report
has concerned a potential safety issue, NHTSA has had other available
data related to the concern that in our view would have been sufficient
for opening an investigation without the product evaluation reports.
Thus, while these reports are valuable to manufacturers as part of
their efforts to develop products that are well received by consumers
they have not proven to be valuable to NHTSA in identifying potential
defect trends. Moreover, the number of product evaluations submitted by
manufacturers is substantial, as is the associated burden on the agency
in reviewing them. About 50 to 60 percent of the approximately 40,000
field reports submitted each quarter fall within the product evaluation
classification.
Comments were submitted by the AIAM, Alliance, Harley-Davidson,
MIC, QCS, SRS and TMA. AIAM, Harley-Davidson, MIC and TMA supported the
proposed change to the reporting requirement and the definition of
product evaluation report as written. The Alliance agreed with
eliminating the requirement that manufacturers submit copies of product
evaluation reports to the agency, but proposed an alternate definition
for product evaluation report. QCS and SRS noted the proposed changes
the EWR rule regarding product evaluations and recommended that the
agency delay any changes until the public had an opportunity to review
the EWR data.
The Alliance focused in part on the clause ``a manufacturer's
employee who is required to submit the report * * * as a condition of
the employee's personal use.'' The Alliance stated that not all product
evaluation reports are required by manufacturers (some are merely
requested rather than formally required) and that the exclusion of them
from the general requirement that copies of field reports be submitted
turns on the lack of technical content in the reports, rather than the
existence of a manufacturer's requirement that employees submit them to
the manufacturer. In addition, the Alliance addressed the clause ``has
no responsibility with respect to engineering or technical analysis of
the subjects mentioned in the report.'' This language, according to the
Alliance, would require manufacturers to determine whether the employee
who submitted the report had duties that ``coincidentally related'' to
one of the subject areas addressed in the report before determining
whether to submit the product evaluation report to NHTSA. Such
language, therefore, would increase the manufacturers' reporting
burden. To address its concerns, the Alliance suggested that the
definition of product evaluation report be changed to read:
Product evaluation report means a field report prepared by, and
containing the observations or comments of, a manufacturer's
employee who submitted the report concerning the operation or
performance of a vehicle or child restraint system as part of the
employee's personal use of the vehicle or child restraint system
under a manufacturer's program authorizing such use.
We agree with the Alliance's view that it is the limited technical
content in product evaluations, rather than an internal corporate
reporting requirement, that warrants their exclusion from the
requirement that manufacturers submit copies of them to the agency. In
other words, the fact that a report was merely requested from the
employee but not required should not determine whether it is a product
evaluation report. Thus, we are eliminating the phrases ``is required
to submit'' and ``as a condition of'' from the definition we proposed
and replacing them with, respectively, the word ``submitted'' and the
phrase ``as a part of''.
While we agree in part with some of the Alliance's concerns
regarding burdens associated with the phrase the employee ``has no
responsibility with respect to engineering or technical analysis of the
subjects mentioned in the report,'' we do not agree that the solution
is simply to eliminate it. We remain concerned that, were we to simply
drop that language, the exclusion could be misapplied such that the
manufacturer would not submit reports by employees who have actually
been assigned to perform technical or engineering evaluation of a known
or suspected problem with the vehicle. Such reports have technical
merit and should not be excluded from EWR reporting merely because such
employees submit such reports while the vehicle is available for the
employee's personal use.
To preclude this, we believe that the revised definition should
make clear that it does not cover reports by employees who have been
granted personal use of a vehicle or child restraint system for the
specific purpose of performing technical or engineering evaluation of a
known or suspected problem with vehicle or child restraint system
(CRS), even if such employees use the vehicle or CRS as part of a
broader manufacturer program authorizing personal use. The burden that
would be imposed by the language contained in the proposed rule, as the
Alliance persuasively explained in its comments, would be to try to
determine ``whether a particular evaluation report regarding a
particular vehicle was submitted by an employee whose duties might be
coincidentally related to one of the subject areas addressed in the
report.'' The proposed language would have required the manufacturer to
look for matches between the range of an employee's duties and the
range of issues covered in a product evaluation report.
At the same time, the Alliance recognizes that NHTSA has a
legitimate need for ``a technical or analytical report undertaken in
response to a consumer complaint or some other indication of a
potential problem.'' What NHTSA is trying to ensure is that it does not
lose access to such reports (which are likely to have technical value)
that might be prepared in connection with the employee's personal use
of the vehicle or CRS.
Accordingly, we have amended the definition to make this clear.
Manufacturers could objectively apply this with a very limited
additional burden, if any. While the proposed definition would have
required the manufacturer to look for any commonalities between an
employee's full range of duties and the issues covered in the
evaluation report, the final rule definition does not impose that
burden. Manufacturers certainly know what vehicles or equipment have
been made available for personal use and whether the employee who has
been granted that personal use has also been assigned the duty to
provide a technical or engineering assessment of a known or suspected
problem with that vehicle or equipment. This could occur either as part
of a broad manufacturer program permitting personal use or a separate
program in which technical personnel are granted personal use to assist
his or her analysis of a particular problem. If a manufacturer never
authorizes personal use of a vehicle or child restraint system by an
employee to facilitate an employee's technical analysis of a previously
known or suspected problem with that particular vehicle or system, this
definition will present no burden at all. Similarly, if a manufacturer
has completely separate programs involving personal use for product
evaluation purposes and personal use to facilitate technical analysis
of a particular issue, the manufacturer's existing distinctions between
these programs mirror the new definition. If, however, a manufacturer
[[Page 29439]]
does permit personal use of a vehicle or child restraint system
specifically to facilitate such technical analysis but such use is
considered part of a broad personal use program, the reports concerning
such use have a high likelihood of having technical merit and should
not be excluded from submission to NHTSA as product evaluation reports.
Therefore, we are adopting the following definition:
Product evaluation report means a field report prepared by, and
containing the observations or comments of, a manufacturer's
employee who submitted the report concerning the operation or
performance of a vehicle or child restraint system as part of the
employee's personal use of the vehicle or child restraint system
under a manufacturer's program authorizing such use, but does not
include a report by an employee who has been granted personal use of
a vehicle or child restraint system for the specific purpose of
facilitating the employee's technical or engineering evaluation of a
known or suspected problem with that vehicle or child restraint
system.
With respect to SRS's and QCS's view that NHTSA should delay any
changes to the EWR rule until EWR data is available for public review,
we do not agree. The agency has an obligation to periodically review
the EWR rule. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(5). Nothing in the statute states that
this duty is contingent on EWR data becoming public. If the agency were
to adopt a policy that delayed rulemakings until confidential data were
available to the public, if ever, the agency would not be able to meet
its statutory obligations. The public would be deprived of the benefits
of our rules. Furthermore, there is no basis for assuming that the EWR
data will become publicly available due to the availability of
confidential treatment for confidential information and ongoing
litigation concerning the EWR data.\4\ SRS and QCS confined their
comments to the issue of public availability of EWR data, an issue not
addressed in this rulemaking. They did not provide comments on the
substantive issues dealt with here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The EWR data is the subject of current litigation on the
issue whether the provision in the TREAD Act relating to disclosure
of early warning data, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(C), is an exemption
(b)(3) statute under the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). The question
whether 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(C) precludes the release of early
warning data is before the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Peters, No.
06-5304. In light of challenges, the agency has issued a stay on the
release of EWR data. In addition, following a remand by the district
court in the Public Citizen case, NHTSA has proposed amendments of
its confidential business rule to include specified EWR data. See 71
FR 63738 (October 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Definition of Fire
The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of light vehicles,
medium-heavy vehicles and buses, motorcycles and trailers to include in
EWR reports incidents involving fires, as well as the underlying
component or system where it originated if included in specified
reporting elements. 49 CFR 579.21-24. The EWR regulation defines fire
as:
Combustion or burning of material in or from a vehicle as
evidence [sic] by flame. The term also includes, but is not limited
to, thermal events and fire-related phenomena such as smoke, sparks,
or smoldering, but does not include events and phenomena associated
with a normally functioning vehicle, such as combustion of fuel
within an engine or exhaust from an engine.
49 CFR 579.4(c). The definition was cast broadly to capture not only
incidents involving actual fires, but also incidents that are
indicative of a fire or potential fire. 67 FR 45822, 45861 (July 10,
2002). In a response to a petition for reconsideration of the EWR
regulation, NHTSA added the last clause to exclude events or phenomena
associated with a normally functioning vehicle. 68 FR 35132, 35134
(June 11, 2003).
The Alliance and TMA initially requested that we amend the fire
definition because, in their view, it is inappropriately broad.\5\
Based upon its members' experience during the past few years, the
Alliance contended that due to the scope of the definition, the numbers
of fires reported in the aggregate property damage, consumer complaint,
warranty, and field report data are artificially high. According to the
Alliance, this has created an inaccurate picture of fire-related
incidents and obscures relevant data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Alliance suggested that NHTSA amend the fire definition
to read: ``Fire means combustion or burning of material in or from a
vehicle as evidenced by flame. The term also includes thermal events
that are precursors to fire and fire related phenomena that
precursors of fires, such as smoldering but does not include events
and phenomena associated with a normally function [sic] vehicle such
as combustion of fuel within an engine or exhaust from an engine.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following our consideration of this request, in the NPRM, we
proposed to amend the fire definition to read:
Fire means combustion or burning of material in or from a
vehicle as evidenced by flame. The term also includes, but is not
limited to, thermal events and fire-related phenomena such as smoke
and melting, but does not include events and phenomena associated
with a normally functioning vehicle such as combustion of fuel
within an engine or exhaust from an engine.
We based this proposed revised definition of fire on a review of a
substantial number of field reports in which we looked at what key
words were used, and we assessed whether the field reports presented
one or more potential fire-related issues of concern, such as a
precursor to a fire.\6\ Our review led us to propose to eliminate the
terms ``sparks'' and ``smoldering'' and add the term ``melt'' to the
fire definition because the preceding terms were used less often to
describe a fire or precursor to fire, while the latter was used more
often to describe a fire or precursor to fire.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We reviewed approximately 750 field reports under the fire
category. Five words or parts thereof were used most often in these
reports to describe a fire event or an incident that could be a
precursor to a fire in the fire-related field report. These were:
burn, flame, fire, melt and smoke. The definition of fire in the
current regulation includes two terms describing precursors to fires
that were seldom used when reporting fire-related events in field
reports: ``sparks'' and ``smoldering''. Moreover, the word spark
could relate to legitimate functions such as sparking of spark
plugs, which would present a screening burden to manufacturers.
Another term, ``melt'', is frequently used by manufacturers in
descriptions of fire events or precursor to a fire. We also found
that the terms ``flame'' and ``burn'' are used frequently, but it is
unnecessary to add them to the second sentence since those terms are
included in the first sentence of the definition.
\7\ We note that in the preamble to the NPRM we proposed to add
the term ``melt'' to the EWR fire definition, yet the proposed
regulatory text included the term ``melting''. Our intent was to
propose the addition of the term ``melt'', not the term ``melting''.
While we believe this to be a distinction without substance because
most text mining applications expand root words to include the
plural or various tenses, we have corrected the regulatory text to
match our intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson and the MIC agreed with the proposed definition.
However, the Alliance, TMA and MEMA objected to the proposed
definition. They commented that the proposed definition of fire would
not alleviate the burden associated with the current fire definition.
In their view, the terms used to describe precursors to fire in the
proposed definition will increase the number of reports that
manufacturers will have to review, potentially increasing the number of
irrelevant reports to NHTSA. In addition, the Alliance commented that
the changed definition may require some manufacturers to reprogram
their text mining applications used in preparing EWR reports, thus
increasing costs. However, none of the commenters that objected to the
proposed definition offered an alternative definition, other than the
one initially recommended by the Alliance, which we addressed in the
NPRM. The Alliance, TMA and MEMA requested that NHTSA not adopt the
proposed definition at this time.
We have decided to adopt the amended fire definition as proposed.
Our review of fire-related field reports
[[Page 29440]]
indicates that the amended fire definition will clarify and improve the
focus of the EWR program. We added to the definition of fire, a term--
``melt'' (which would include all derivative forms of the word
``melt'')--that is used relatively frequently by manufacturers''
representatives when describing a fire-related incident and have
eliminated the terms--sparks or smoldering--that are used infrequently.
There may be a small, one-time burden on manufacturers associated
with this amendment. The burden would arise in the formulation of
amendments to the manufacturers' text mining tools so that the search
function utilized by manufacturers captures the additional term
``melt'', if not already included. After adjusting the text mining
tools, however, the burden in reporting fires under the new definition
should be comparable to the burden under the definition that has
applied to date. This follows from the structure of the definition of
fire. Both before and after the amendments being adopted today, the
first sentence and opening clause of the second sentence of the
definition of fire provided that it means ``combustion or burning of
material in or from a vehicle as evidenced by flame. The term also
includes, but is not limited to, thermal events and fire-related
phenomena such as smoke * * * '' Following the words ``such as'', the
words ``smoke'', ``sparks'' and ``smoldering'' under the initial
definition in the EWR rule and ``smoke'' and ``melt'' under the new
definition are illustrative examples of ``thermal events'' and fire-
related phenomena and are not all-inclusive terms. That phrase has
required and continues to require a good faith review of fire-related
reports to determine if the incident is within the scope of the fire
definition. Of course, there is a burden associated with such a review,
but the manufacturers have not shown that it would increase beyond this
potential one-time text mining change.
C. Brake and Fuel System Subcategories
The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles
and buses (MHB) to report the numbers of property damage claims,
consumer complaints, warranty claims and field reports (aggregate data)
regarding brake systems separately depending on the type of brake
system. The types of brake systems identified by the EWR regulation
are: ``03 service brake system, hydraulic''; and ``04 service brake
system, air''. 49 CFR 579.22(b)(2), (c). Similarly, MHB manufacturers
must report EWR aggregate data on fuel systems separately depending on
the type of systems. The types of fuel systems identified by the EWR
regulation are: ``07 fuel system, gasoline, 08 fuel system, diesel, and
09 fuel system, other''. Id.
The Alliance and TMA initially raised concerns of incorrect binning
of reports in the MHB brake and fuel systems subcategories because of
the inability to identify the particular brake or fuel system in
documents on some vehicles. They placed claims and complaints on
vehicles with unknown brake systems or fuel systems in the EWR
component category with the most vehicle production, which they
observed leads to comparisons that might not be accurate. They
recommended that the two brake systems be combined into ``Service Brake
System'' and the three fuel systems be combined into ``Fuel System''.
The NPRM explained that NHTSA is also concerned with the precise
binning of the EWR data. Because of our concern, we declined to propose
an amendment that combined the subcategories as requested due to the
potentially less accurate reporting on MHB models with multiple brake
or fuel systems. We stated that there is considerable value in knowing
the nature of the underlying brake or fuel system. We pointed out that
ODI's investigations related to brake and fuel systems frequently
involve only one of the multiple brake or fuel systems offered on a
particular model of vehicle. Combining the brake and fuel system
categories would have diminished ODI's ability to identify trends
because aggregating the data into a single category for brake or fuel
systems could mask potential problems in one particular type of brake
or fuel system. In addition, we noted that in virtually all of the EWR
MHB aggregate data, the vehicle identification number (VIN) identifies
the type of brake or fuel system on the vehicle.
In an attempt to improve the accuracy of the data that we are
receiving, we proposed to amend the MHB fuel system subcategory. The
agency proposed to amend the component category ``09 fuel system,
other'' to ``09 fuel systems, other/unknown''. We also requested
comment on whether the agency should add new subcategories to one or
both of the brake and fuel component categories. The NPRM suggested
that by segregating out the unknown fuel systems, the accuracy of the
other fuel system categories could increase.
We received comments from the Alliance and TMA on the MHB vehicle
brake and fuel subcategory proposals. The Alliance agreed with our view
that manufacturers can identify the particular type of brake and fuel
systems in vehicles in the MHB category through the VIN in almost all
the EWR aggregate data. The Alliance concurred with the agency's view
that there is very little chance of inaccurate reporting under the
current regulatory structure and recommended that the agency retain the
existing system, without change. TMA commented that there is limited
potential for erroneous reporting based on the current brake and fuel
categories and opposed the proposed changes to the brake and fuel
subcategories due to the burden associated with such changes.
We have decided not to adopt the proposed change to the MHB fuel
subcategory or to change the MHB brake category. As noted in the NPRM
and as the Alliance and TMA recognize, the frequency of inaccurate
reporting due to an unknown brake or fuel system on a subject vehicle
is very low because the VIN identifies the type of brake or fuel system
on the vehicle. Therefore, the potential for inaccurate data and
erroneous comparisons within the EWR aggregate data is negligible.
D. Updating of Reports on Death and Injury Incidents
The EWR rule requires manufacturers of light vehicles, medium-heavy
vehicles and buses, motorcycles, trailers and child seats and tires to
submit information on incidents involving death or injury identified in
a notice or claim received by a manufacturer in the specified reporting
period. 49 CFR 579.21(b), 579.22 (b), 579.23(b), 579.24(b), 579.25(b)
and 579.26(b). For vehicles, these reports include the VIN; for tires
they include the tire identification number (TIN). Generally, these
reports include the system or component, by codes specified in the
rule, that allegedly contributed to the incident. Manufacturers must
submit reports on incidents involving death and injury even if they do
not know the VIN, TIN or system or component. The EWR regulation
requires manufacturers to update their reports on incidents involving
death or injury if the manufacturer becomes aware of (i) the VIN/TIN
that was previously unknown or (ii) one or more of the specified
systems or components that allegedly contributed to the incident. 49
CFR 579.28(f)(2). The requirement to update is unlimited in time.
In the NPRM, we proposed to limit the requirement to update to four
calendar quarters or less after the submission of the initial report.
Based on over two years of EWR data, after one
[[Page 29441]]
year following the initial EWR report, the likelihood of obtaining
missing information on the VINs/TINs and the systems and components
that allegedly contributed to the incident diminished substantially. As
indicated in the NPRM, under this approach, the EWR program would not
be adversely affected by the absence of the information that would no
longer be received after one year. The proposed amendment would reduce
some of the burden on manufacturers to provide updates. We also stated
that manufacturers that identify a missing VIN, TIN or component later
than one (1) year after the submission of the initial report may submit
an updated report of such incident at their option. In advancing this
proposal, we declined to follow the initial recommendation of the
Alliance to eliminate entirely the requirement to update after the
initial report. As explained in the NPRM, updating information on
deaths and injuries is important to provide complete and accurate
information relating to death and injury incidents as an early indicant
of a potential safety-related trend.
The Alliance, AIAM, Harley-Davidson, MIC, RMA and TMA all supported
the proposed amendment limiting the requirement to update reports of
incidents involving death or injury to a period of no more than one
year after NHTSA receives the initial report. We did not receive any
comments that opposed the proposal to limit temporally the requirement
to update. NHTSA, therefore, is adopting the amendments to 49 CFR
579.28(f)(2)(i) and 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(ii) as proposed.
In addition to expressing support for limiting the requirement to
update incidents involving death or injury, RMA recommended that
manufacturers should have the ability to delete reported claims or
notices of injury or death that erroneously included a tire that the
manufacturer later learns from the TIN is outside the scope of EWR
reporting. RMA contends that while this problem happens infrequently, a
correction to the system is necessary to maintain the integrity of the
EWR data.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ RMA also recommended that the agency should amend the
definition of ``minimal specificity'' for a tire in 49 CFR 579.4(c)
to address the out of scope tire issue. In the NPRM, we did not
propose any amendments to the definition of minimal specificity.
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We decline to adopt RMA's recommendation to permit tire
manufacturers to delete data from the ARTEMIS database. First, the
magnitude of the alleged problem of errors is not significant. RMA
noted that it occurs infrequently. ODI is aware of only 12 tire
incidents (less than 1 percent of all tire death and injury claims and
notices) where the manufacturer initially submitted a death or injury
incident in a quarterly report, but later learned that the tire
allegedly was outside the reporting requirements of the rule. RMA's
suggestion would open the door to questionable data deletions. The EWR
data base is electronic; manufacturers transmit data without concurrent
review by ODI. If manufacturers were given the ability to delete death
and injury incidents, a manufacturer could potentially delete an
incident from ARTEMIS without NHTSA knowing why it was deleted. ODI
would expend substantial resources to determine which records were
deleted from prior submissions and to ascertain the rationale. In
addition, RMA's proposal would require a major change to ARTEMIS.
Currently, ARTEMIS permits only updates to incidents of death and
injury, not the ability to delete data. To change this protocol, NHTSA
would have to undergo a costly systems change. We cannot justify the
cost of such a change to ARTEMIS protocol when the need to delete an
out of scope tire happens so infrequently. Finally, the change that RMA
suggests is not within the scope of the agency's proposal, which did
not touch on possible deletions from EWR data that have been submitted.
Accordingly, as stated above, NHTSA is adopting the proposal as
written. Thus, 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(i) will be revised to read:
If a vehicle manufacturer is not aware of the VIN, or a tire
manufacturer is not aware of the TIN, at the time the incident is
initially reported, the manufacturer shall submit an updated report
of such incident in its report covering the reporting period in
which the VIN or TIN is identified. A manufacturer need not submit
an updated report if the VIN or TIN is identified by the
manufacturer in a reporting period that is more than one year later
than the initial report to NHTSA.
The agency also revises 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(ii) to read:
If a manufacturer indicated code 99 in its report because a
system or component had not been identified in the claim or notice
that led to the report, and the manufacturer becomes aware during a
subsequent calendar quarter that one or more of the specified
systems or components allegedly contributed to the incident, the
manufacturer shall submit an updated report of such incident in its
report covering the reporting period in which the involved specified
system(s) or component(s) is (are) identified. A manufacturer need
not submit an updated report if the system(s) or component(s) is
(are) identified by the manufacturer in a reporting period that is
more than one year later than the initial report to NHTSA.
IV. Lead Time
The Alliance correctly pointed out that we did not propose any
effective date for the proposed amendments to the EWR rule. It
suggested that for any changes that relax existing requirements, such
as eliminating product evaluation reports, should be made effective
immediately upon publication of the final rule. For changes that would
require manufacturers to modify their existing EWR databases and/or IT
systems, such as amending the fire definition, the Alliance recommended
at least twelve (12) months of lead time. The Alliance did not explain
why twelve (12) months lead time is necessary for the minor
definitional changes proposed in the NPRM.
While lead time associated with changes to EWR reporting was
implicitly part of our NPRM, we left it to commenters to provide
information and justification. Some lead time is appropriate so
manufacturers may modify their existing EWR databases and/or IT systems
for the one amendment adopted by this final rule that may require such
modifications. Manufacturers will have to modify their EWR databases
and/or IT systems due to the amended fire definition. However, we do
not believe twelve (12) months is appropriate for such a minor change.
The change to the fire definition may require some manufacturers to
amend their text-mining tools to include the term ``melt''. Some other
minor modifications may be necessary. Moreover, manufacturers already
review their field reports and aggregate date for incidents related to
a fire, which include precursors to fire. Manufacturers should not have
to modify their review of fire related incidents due to the adoption of
the amended fire definition. Accordingly, the effective date for the
amended definition of fire will be for the reporting period beginning
on January 1, 2008.
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.
[[Page 29442]]
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.
This document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866 or the Department
of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
action is not significant under Department of Transportation policies
and procedures. The impacts of this final rule are expected to be so
minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation
because this rule would alleviate some of the burden on manufacturers
to provide EWR reports by eliminating the requirement to submit copies
of product evaluation field reports, modifying the definition of a
fire, and temporally limiting the requirement to update reports on
incidents of death and injury.
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.
This final rule would affect all EWR manufacturers, of which there
are currently about 540. NHTSA estimates that a majority of these EWR
manufacturers are small entities. Therefore, NHTSA has determined that
this final rule would have an impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
However, NHTSA has determined that the impact on the entities
affected by the final rule would not be significant. This final rule
eliminates the reporting of product evaluation field reports, revises
the definition of fire, and limits the time period for required updates
to a few data elements in reports of deaths and injuries. The effect of
these changes would be to reduce annual reporting costs to
manufacturers. NHTSA expects the impact of the final rule would be a
reduction in the paperwork burden for EWR manufacturers. NHTSA asserts
that the economic impact of the reduction in paperwork, if any, would
be minimal and entirely beneficial to small EWR manufacturers.
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)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action would not have
``federalism implications'' because it would not have ``substantial
direct effects on 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 section 1 of the Executive Order.
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). The
Final Rule implementing EWR did not have unfunded mandates
implications. 67 FR 49263 (July 30, 2002). Today's final rule would
alleviate some of the burden for manufacturers to provide EWR reports
by eliminating the requirement to submit copies of product evaluation
field reports, and temporally limiting the requirement to update
reports on incidents of death and injury.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
NHTSA notes that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings
before they may file suit in court.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Today's final rule does not create new information collection
requirements, as that term is defined by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. If anything, it reduces the
information collection burden of reporting EWR data by manufacturers of
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. To the extent that this
final rule implicates the Paperwork Reduction Act, we rely upon our
previous clearance from OMB. To obtain a three-year clearance for
information collection for the EWR rule, NHTSA published a Paperwork
Reduction Act notice on April 27, 2005 pursuant to the requirements of
that Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We received clearance from OMB on
February 24, 2006, which will expire on February 29, 2008. The
clearance number is 2127-0616.
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.
This rulemaking 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
[[Page 29443]]
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 comments 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 document would alleviate some of the burden
for manufacturers to provide EWR reports by eliminating the requirement
to submit copies of product evaluation field reports, modifying the
definition of a fire, and temporally limiting the requirement to update
reports on incidents of death and injury.
VII. Proposed Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 579
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR chapter V is amended as
follows:
PART 579--REPORTING OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT
POTENTIAL DEFECTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 579 is amended to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Subpart A--General
0
2. Amend Sec. 579.4(c) to revise the definition of ``fire'' and add
the definition of ``product evaluation report'', in alphabetical order,
to read as follows:
Sec. 579.4 Terminology.
* * * * *
(c) Other terms. * * *
* * * * *
Fire means combustion or burning of material in or from a vehicle
as evidenced by flame. The term also includes, but is not limited to,
thermal events and fire-related phenomena such as smoke and melt, but
does not include events and phenomena associated with a normally
functioning vehicle such as combustion of fuel within an engine or
exhaust from an engine.
* * * * *
Product evaluation report means a field report prepared by, and
containing the observations or comments of, a manufacturer's employee
who submitted the report concerning the operation or performance of a
vehicle or child restraint system as part of the employee's personal
use of the vehicle or child restraint system under a manufacturer's
program authorizing such use, but does not include a report by an
employee who has been granted personal use of a vehicle or child
restraint system for the specific purpose of facilitating the
employee's technical or engineering evaluation of a known or suspected
problem with that vehicle or child restraint system.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Reporting of Early Warning Information
0
3. Amend Sec. 579.21 to revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 579.21 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more
light vehicles annually.
* * * * *
(d) Copies of field reports. For all light vehicles manufactured
during a model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model
years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, a copy
of each field report (other than a dealer report or a product
evaluation report) involving one or more of the systems or components
identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or fire, or rollover,
containing any assessment of an alleged failure, malfunction, lack of
durability, or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment (including any part thereof) that is originated
by an employee or representative of the manufacturer and that the
manufacturer received during a reporting period. * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 579.22 to revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 579.22 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more
medium-heavy vehicles and buses annually.
* * * * *
(d) Copies of field reports. For all medium heavy vehicles and
buses manufactured during a model year covered by the reporting period
and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the
reporting period, a copy of each field report (other than a dealer
report or a product evaluation report) involving one or more of the
systems or components identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
or fire, or rollover, containing any assessment of an alleged failure,
malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment (including any part
thereof) that is originated by an employee or representative of the
manufacturer and that the manufacturer received during a reporting
period. * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 579.23 to revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 579.23 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more
motorcycles annually.
* * * * *
(d) Copies of field reports. For all motorcycles manufactured
during a model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model
years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, a copy
of each field report (other than a dealer report or a product
evaluation report) involving one or more of the systems or components
identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section or fire, containing any
assessment of an alleged failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or
other performance problem of a motorcycle or item of motor vehicle
equipment (including any part thereof) that is originated by an
employee or representative of the manufacturer and that the
manufacturer received during a reporting period. * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 579.24 to revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 579.24 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more
trailers annually.
* * * * *
[[Page 29444]]
(d) Copies of field reports. For all trailers manufactured during a
model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model years
prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, a copy of
each field report (other than a dealer report or a product evaluation
report) involving one or more of the systems or components identified
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section or fire, containing any assessment
of an alleged failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other
performance problem of a trailer or item of motor vehicle equipment
(including any part thereof) that is originated by an employee or
representative of the manufacturer and that the manufacturer received
during a reporting period. * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 579.25 to revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 579.25 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of child
restraint systems.
* * * * *
(d) Copies of field reports. For all child restraint systems
manufactured during a production year covered by the reporting period
and the four production years prior to the earliest production year in
the reporting period, a copy of each field report (other than a dealer
report or a product evaluation report) involving one or more of the
systems or components identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
containing any assessment of an alleged failure, malfunction, lack of
durability, or other performance problem of a child restraint system
(including any part thereof) that is originated by an employee or
representative of the manufacturer and that the manufacturer received
during a reporting period. * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 579.28 to revise paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 579.28 Due date of reports and other miscellaneous provision.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If a vehicle manufacturer is not aware of the VIN, or a tire
manufacturer is not aware of the TIN, at the time the incident is
initially reported, the manufacturer shall submit an updated report of
such incident in its report covering the reporting period in which the
VIN or TIN is identified. A manufacturer need not submit an updated
report if the VIN or TIN is identified by the manufacturer in a
reporting period that is more than one year later than the initial
report to NHTSA.
(ii) If a manufacturer indicated code 99 in its report because a
system or component had not been identified in the claim or notice that
led to the report, and the manufacturer becomes aware during a
subsequent calendar quarter that one or more of the specified systems
or components allegedly contributed to the incident, the manufacturer
shall submit an updated report of such incident in its report covering
the reporting period in which the involved specified system(s) or
component(s) is (are) identified. A manufacturer need not submit an
updated report if the system(s) or component(s) is(are) identified by
the manufacturer in a reporting period that is more than one year later
than the initial report to NHTSA.
* * * * *
Issued on: May 21, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-10155 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P