Reporting of Early Warning Information, 52040-52050 [E6-14580]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 170 (Friday, September 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52040-52050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14580]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25653; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AJ94


Reporting of Early Warning Information

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to certain provisions of the 
early warning reporting rule published pursuant to the Transportation 
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. This 
document proposes to modify and clarify some of the manufacturers' 
reporting requirements under the rule. It would identify a subclass of 
field reports referred to as product evaluation reports and eliminate 
the requirement that manufacturers submit copies of them to the agency, 
revise the definition of fire, modify reporting relating to fuel 
systems on medium-heavy vehicles and buses, and limit the time period 
for required updates to a few data elements in reports of deaths and 
injuries.

DATES: Comments Closing Date: Comments must be received on or before 
October 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
NHTSA 2006-25653 by any of the following methods:
     Web site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Request for 
Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document regarding documents submitted to the agency's 
dockets.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For all issues except legal issues, 
contact Tina Morgan, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA (phone: 
202-366-0699). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of 
Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone: 202-366-5263). You may send mail to these 
officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

Introduction
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Background
    A. The Early Warning Reporting Regulation
    B. Industry Recommendations
    C. Scope of This Rulemaking
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. Request for Comments
V. Privacy Act Statement
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Proposed Regulatory Text

Introduction

    In November 2000, Congress enacted 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 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:
     Monthly reporting of manufacturer communications (e.g., 
notices to

[[Page 52041]]

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.
    EWR reporting was phased in. The first quarterly 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 just over two years of 
experience using the EWR information.
    The Early Warning Reporting Division of the Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of early warning 
data and documents (e.g., an average of more than 50,000 individual 
field reports per calendar quarter) submitted by manufacturers. ODI 
continues to achieve its primary mission of identifying and ensuring 
the recall of defective vehicles and equipment that pose an 
unreasonable risk to safety. Using both its traditional sources of 
information such as complaints from vehicle owners and manufacturers' 
own communications, as well as the additional quantum of information 
provided by EWR submissions, ODI continues to conduct many 
investigations of potential safety defects and to influence recalls 
where defects have been determined to be present. In 2005, for example, 
manufacturers recalled more than 17 million vehicles for defective 
conditions, a majority of which involved recalls influenced by ODI's 
investigations.
    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. Having now completed two full years of 
reporting, we have begun our evaluation of the rule.
    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 present proposed resolutions of the issues 
in this notice.
    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. This will 
entail making reasonable estimates of the quantity and quality of data 
that might be lost if the threshold is increased to particular levels 
and analyzing whether such a loss would have an appreciable effect on 
ODI's ability to identify possible safety defects. 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 value 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.

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The early warning reporting (EWR) rule requires certain 
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to submit 
information to NHTSA. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. This proposed rule 
would reduce some of the reporting requirements and reporting burden on 
manufacturers in a manner that would not adversely impact NHTSA's 
ability to identify and assess potential safety-related defects. The 
proposed rule does not address and, therefore, does not propose 
modifications of the basic structure of the EWR rule.
    Under the EWR rule, certain manufacturers must submit to NHTSA 
numerical tallies, by specified system and component, of all field 
reports as well as copies of field reports, except copies of field 
reports by dealers. The proposed rule would create another exception 
regarding the copies of field reports that must be sent to NHTSA. The 
proposed rule would denominate a subset of field reports known as 
product evaluation reports and eliminate the requirement that 
manufacturers submit them to NHTSA. In general, product evaluation 
reports essentially are evaluations by employees of manufacturers who 
as a condition of personal use of new vehicles fill out evaluations of 
the vehicles. These employees have no role in engineering or technical 
analysis of any conditions noted in the evaluations. The proposed rule 
would specifically define product evaluation reports. This proposal 
would not change the existing requirements that specified manufacturers 
report the numbers of field reports received.
    The EWR rule requires certain vehicle manufacturers to submit to 
NHTSA numerical tallies indicating whether the underlying matter (e.g., 
consumer complaint, warranty claim or field report) involved a 
specified system or component and whether it involved a fire, as well 
as field reports on fires. The regulatory definition of fire includes 
fires and precursors of fires. This proposal would change the 
definition of a fire to eliminate two precursors of fire--the terms 
``sparks'' and ``smoldering''--and add one term, ``melt'', to the 
definition.
    Under the EWR rule, manufacturers in the medium-heavy truck and bus 
category submit specified information on fuel systems. The information 
is submitted separately by the type of fuel system in the vehicle: 
Gasoline, diesel or other. ``Other'' includes compressed natural gas 
and vehicles that operate on more than one type of fuel. Under this 
proposed rule, the denomination of the category ``Fuel System Other'' 
would be changed to ``Fuel System Other/Unknown''. This expanded 
category would include vehicles where the type of fuel system in the 
vehicle is not known.
    Last, the EWR rule requires manufacturers to submit reports of 
incidents involving death or injury, and

[[Page 52042]]

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 notice proposes to limit the 
requirement to submit updates to a period of no more than one year 
after NHTSA receives the initial report.

II. 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, 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 that could be used to identify potential safety-
related defects.
    The EWR regulation divides manufacturers of motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment into two groups with different reporting 
responsibilities for reporting information. The first group consists of 
(a) larger vehicle manufacturers (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
     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).
    Most of the provisions summarized above (i.e., property damage 
claims, warranty claims, consumer complaints and field reports) require 
manufacturers to submit information in the form of numerical tallies, 
by specified system and component. These data are referred to as 
aggregate data. Reports on deaths or injuries contain specified data 
elements. In addition, 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.

B. Industry Recommendations

    Beginning in late 2005, in anticipation of the agency's evaluation 
of the EWR regulation, several industry associations submitted 
unsolicited recommendations to modify the EWR rule. Those associations 
included the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), the 
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) and the Truck Manufacturers 
Association (TMA).\2\ In general, the various industry associations did 
not recommend a significant restructuring of the current EWR program. 
They expressed the view that their members have invested significant 
resources to establish their EWR reporting programs and cautioned 
against changes that would alter the format of reporting or the 
templates required by the agency because such changes would impose 
substantial costs on them. In view of these concerns, the industry 
associations recommended changes to the EWR regulation that, in their 
view, would improve the focus of the early warning reports and reduce 
the reporting burden on their members and, at the same time, that could 
be implemented without substantial expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The letters from the industry associations are available for 
review in the docket. You can view them by going to https://
dms.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the first phase of the agency's evaluation of the 
EWR rule covers definitional issues that could be evaluated in a 
relatively short period of time. Many of the issues raised in these 
industry submissions are addressed in this NPRM. Some issues require 
more analysis and will be part of the second phase of NHTSA's EWR 
evaluation.
    In addition, on April 14, 2006, NTEA petitioned NHTSA to amend the 
EWR rule in various ways. The issues raised in that petition are not 
being addressed in this notice. As a matter of resource allocation and 
planning, as discussed above, this notice is limited in scope. NHTSA 
intends to consider the issues raised by NTEA in that petition in the 
second phase of NHTSA's evaluation.

C. Scope of This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is limited in scope to the changes to the EWR 
requirements proposed in this NPRM, as well as logical outgrowths of 
the proposal. While NHTSA has received

[[Page 52043]]

recommendations on other issues (e.g., possible changes in the 
reporting thresholds), those are outside the scope of this notice. 
During the next phase of the EWR rule evaluation, NHTSA may decide to 
address some of these issues through additional rulemaking, in which 
case interested persons may address those issues in response to a 
subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking.

III. Discussion

A. Field Reports

    The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of light vehicles, 
medium-heavy vehicles and buses, motorcycles, trailers and child seats 
to submit copies of non-dealer field reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 
579.21(d), 579.22(d), 579.23(d), 579.24(d ) and 579.25(d).
    Field reports include written communications from an employee or 
representative of the manufacturer, a manufacturer's dealer or 
authorized service facility or a fleet operating the manufacturer's 
vehicles to the manufacturer regarding the failure, malfunction, lack 
of durability, or other performance in the manufacturer's vehicle or 
equipment.\3\ See 49 CFR 579.4. Field reports often contain significant 
information about a potential problem because the reports are completed 
by a manufacturer's employee or representative with technical 
expertise. In the EWR rule, we recognized that, in general, field 
reports from some entities tend to yield more information than field 
reports from others. For example, field reports by manufacturers' 
technical representatives tend to be more technically informative than 
field reports by vehicle dealers' employees. In light of this 
difference, the EWR regulation required manufacturers to report tallies 
of numbers, by system or component, fire and rollover, of all field 
reports, but limited the submission of copies of field reports to 
reports by persons other than dealers. Compare 49 CFR 579.21(c) with 49 
CFR 579.21(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under the EWR rule, manufacturers have submitted large volumes of 
non-dealer field reports to NHTSA. In fact, in 2004 and 2005, 
manufacturers submitted approximately 430,000 copies of non-dealer 
field reports.\4\ In turn, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation 
(ODI) has devoted substantial resources to the review of these field 
reports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Roughly 93 percent of non-dealer field reports submitted to 
NHTSA addressed light vehicles.
    \5\ In addition to reviewing all hard copies of non-dealer field 
reports as they are received by the agency, ODI also searches the 
EWR hard-copies of non-dealer field reports during its process of 
identifying potential safety issues through other non-EWR data 
(i.e., consumer complaints, technical service bulletins and other 
non-EWR data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance and TMA suggested that the agency consider ways to 
reduce the number of field reports submitted. In the Alliance's view, 
the current definition of ``field report'' is overly broad because it 
requires manufacturers to submit all communications written by an 
employee regarding a performance problem in a motor vehicle. The 
Alliance points out that this includes thousands of reports prepared by 
non-technical employees of the manufacturer. These reports--which are 
referred to as ``product evaluations''--are generated by a 
manufacturer's employees who lease or use a new vehicle for personal 
use subject to the condition that they provide written evaluations of 
the vehicles. The Alliance asserts that the product evaluations are not 
based on any technical review or analysis of an issue or on an 
inspection of any part or system noted in the evaluation. Rather, the 
Alliance contends, product evaluation reports are more like consumer 
complaints (see 49 CFR 579.4(c)) because they are not grounded on 
specific technical expertise. According to the Alliance, the product 
evaluations have little or no value as indicators of potential safety-
related defects, but are a significant burden on manufacturers to 
submit.
    The Alliance recommends that the agency revise the EWR rule 
provision requiring the submission of field reports to eliminate the 
requirement for manufacturers to submit copies of the product 
evaluations. In particular, the Alliance suggests that the 
parenthetical exclusion in 49 CFR 579.21(d) be changed from ``(other 
than a dealer report)'' to ``(other than a dealer report or a report 
from the operator of the vehicle).'' The Alliance also suggests that 
the reporting of the numbers of field reports in the aggregate data 
remain unchanged. It contends that the costs to the manufacturers to 
change their information technology (IT) infrastructure to report 
product evaluations as consumer complaints would be large, while the 
expected benefits would be low, and therefore that a change to the 
reporting of numbers would not be warranted.
    We tentatively agree with the Alliance's suggestion that 
manufacturers should not be required to submit copies of field reports 
that amount only to product evaluations by their employees. To begin, a 
very large number of product evaluation reports are submitted under the 
EWR rule. About 50 to 60 percent of the approximately 50,000 field 
reports submitted each quarter fall within the product evaluation 
classification. The review of these by NHTSA's ODI consumes substantial 
resources.
    The information provided by reviewing individual product 
evaluations has not advanced ODI's identification of potential safety 
defects, and the elimination of the requirement to submit copies of 
product evaluations will not affect ODI's overall capability to 
identify potential defects. A substantial majority of the product 
evaluations do not contain sufficient information to identify a 
potential safety-related problem area. In fact, because product 
evaluation reports are not intended to focus specifically on safety 
issues, they often concern non-safety issues such as the comfort and 
convenience of the vehicle driver. Even when they touch on subjects 
that may be safety-related, the product evaluation field reports do not 
provide a technical assessment of the alleged problem. During the 
screening process that NHTSA uses to review all available information 
to identify likely candidates for further investigation, ODI often 
utilizes information submitted by manufacturers (written communications 
such as technical service bulletins) \6\ and consumers (such as vehicle 
owner complaints, also known as vehicle owner questionnaires (VOQ)) \7\ 
as well as EWR information. In this process, the information in EWR 
field reports, other than product evaluation reports, adds technical 
insight into potential safety problems identified through VOQs and 
other sources of information. However, product evaluation reports have 
not added this technical insight. When an issue has been noted in a 
product evaluation report, ODI has had other data (e.g., VOQs, 
technical service bulletins or EWR field reports other than product 
evaluation reports) that, in our view, would have been sufficient for

[[Page 52044]]

opening an investigation without the product evaluation field 
report(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 49 CFR 579.5.
    \7\ See https://www.odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, eliminating the requirement to submit copies of product 
evaluation reports would not have a detrimental impact on ODI's ability 
to identify potential safety-related issues, would facilitate a far 
more productive use of ODI's limited resources by significantly 
reducing the sheer volume of reports that must be reviewed, and would 
reduce the burden on the manufacturers to submit them.
    Therefore, we propose to amend paragraph (d) of 49 CFR 579.21-
579.25 to add ``product evaluation report'' to the parenthetical in the 
first sentence. Thus, for example, section 579.21(d) would read:

    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 
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.

    We also propose to add the definition of ``a product evaluation 
report'' to 49 CFR 579.4(c). We propose the following definition:

    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.

    The proposed definition would eliminate only those reports from a 
manufacturer's employee who has personal use of a new production 
vehicle or child restraint system and is required to submit a product 
evaluation as a condition of the employee's use of the vehicle, where 
the employee has no responsibility for engineering or technical 
analysis of the subject matter of the report.
    This proposal would not eliminate the requirement to report the 
numbers of product evaluation reports in the submission of aggregate 
data. Specifically, manufacturers would continue to report the number 
of product evaluation field reports, broken down by codes indicating 
the affected system or component, as part of the field report aggregate 
data. Retaining the count of product evaluation reports as part of the 
aggregate data submissions on field reports will ensure that any 
significant trends in the volume of such reports related to particular 
components or systems, which may provide some indication of a possible 
safety issue, will still be reflected in the aggregate data without the 
need for time-consuming review of all such reports, which experience 
has shown is very unlikely to yield important safety information.
    We seek comment on the elimination of the requirement to submit 
copies of product evaluation reports. We also seek comment on the 
proposed definition of ``product evaluation report''. We specifically 
ask whether the proposed definition of ``product evaluation report'' is 
tailored to eliminate employees'' product evaluations but not other 
assessments. Any comments should be supported by sufficient 
justification.

B. Definition of Fire

    The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of light vehicles, 
medium-heavy vehicles and buses, motorcycles and trailers to report 
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 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 requested that we amend the fire definition 
because, in their view, it is inappropriately broad. Based upon its 
members' experience during the past two years, the Alliance contends 
that due to the scope of the definition, the numbers of fires reported 
in the aggregate warranty, consumer complaint, property damage and 
field report data are artificially high. According to the Alliance, 
this creates an inaccurate picture of fire-related incidents and 
obscures relevant data.
    As explained by the Alliance, its members commonly employ a two-
step process to report fires under the EWR rule. In a first level 
screening, they use text-mining tools to locate potentially reportable 
incidents. In a second level review, the manufacturers review the 
documents identified in the initial screening and decide whether the 
item is actually within the scope of the EWR definition of fire. The 
Alliance claims that the inclusion of the terms ``smoke'' and 
``sparks'' has created a large burden on the manufacturers, since in 
the first step they identify a relatively large number of potentially 
reportable fires. Furthermore, the Alliance asserts that in the second 
step, when in doubt whether an item is related to a fire, manufacturers 
report the incident to NHTSA, whether or not the incident is actually 
related to a fire, which leads to over-reporting.\8\ TMA has the same 
view as the Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Alliance did not provide any support for its contentions 
that its members submit artificially high numbers of fire related 
EWR warranty claims, and such reporting creates a significant 
burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these concerns, the Alliance recommends that the agency 
amend the second sentence of the definition for ``fire'' to remove the 
phrase ``but is not limited to'' and the precursor terms ``smoke'' and 
``sparks''. Under the Alliance proposal, the fire definition would 
read: ``The term also includes (i) thermal events that are precursors 
to fire and (ii) fire related phenomena that are precursors of fires, 
such as 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.''
    To evaluate whether the definition of fire could be improved, we 
reviewed a substantial number of field reports to see what words were 
used in them and to assess if they presented one or more potential 
fire-related issues of concern, such as a precursor to a fire. Field 
reports were reviewed because they contain free field text. In 
contrast, other EWR data, such as aggregate data on consumer 
complaints, does not contain free field text. For the third and fourth 
quarters of 2005, ODI received about 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.\9\ The definition of

[[Page 52045]]

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. NHTSA 
tentatively believes that these two words could be deleted from the 
definition of fire. Another term, ``melt'', is frequently used by 
manufacturers in descriptions of fire events or precursor to a 
fire.\10\ The agency tentatively believes that this word should be 
added to the definition of fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We continue to encounter euphemistic descriptions of fires 
by manufacturers such as ``thermal incident'', ``rapid oxidation'' 
and ``hot spot''. We consider those descriptions to fall within the 
scope of the definition of fire.
    \10\ The ODI study 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency, therefore, proposes 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 recognize that the amendment to the fire definition offered by 
the Alliance did not include the phrase ``but is not limited to''. The 
Alliance did not explain why it would have NHTSA delete the phrase 
``but is not limited to'' from the EWR definition. We have retained 
that language in the proposed version of the definition to assure that 
that there is no confusion about whether the terms used in the 
definition are intended to be an exhaustive list of all terms that 
might trigger a need to report an event as a fire event. They are not 
intended to provide an exhaustive list. Those terms (``fire,'' 
``burn,'' ``flame,'' ``smoke,'' and ``melt'') are the words most often 
associated, in ODI's experience, with manufacturer reports of events 
that actually entail a fire or precursor to a fire. Including those 
terms (or some form of them) in the definition helps sharpen the 
definition and provide guidance on the terms most likely to be used to 
indicate a reportable event. Nevertheless, some reports involving such 
events include other terms, such as ``thermal incidents'', ``rapid 
oxidation'' and ``hot spots''. Under the revised definition as 
proposed, manufacturers would retain the duty to report fires, thermal 
events, and other fire-related phenomena, other than those associated 
with the normal functioning of a vehicle, regardless of whether the 
specific words used in the definition are present in relevant 
documents.

C. Brake and Fuel System Subcategories

    The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles 
and buses (MHB) to report the numbers of claims, complaints, warranties 
and field reports regarding brake systems separately depending on the 
type of brake system. The types of brake systems identified by the EWR 
regulation are: ``Service Brake System: service brake system 03; 
(hydraulic) and service brake system 04; (air)'' 49 CFR 579.22(b)(2), 
(c). Similarly, MHB manufacturers must report fuel systems separately 
depending on the type of systems. The types of fuel systems identified 
by the EWR regulation are: ``Fuel System: Fuel system 07; (gasoline), 
fuel system 08; (diesel), and fuel system 09; (other)''. Id.
    Instead of reporting based on the specific type of system, the 
Alliance and TMA recommend that the two brake systems be combined into 
``Service Brake System'' and the three fuel systems be combined into 
``Fuel System''. Their concerns appear to be grounded on the 
availability of accurate data. They recognize that information on the 
brake and fuel systems could be entered accurately into EWR data if the 
manufacturers had the vehicle identification number (VIN) or sufficient 
information to identify the brake system (i.e., hydraulic or air 
brakes) or fuel system (gasoline, diesel or other (e.g., multiple fuels 
or compressed natural gas)) on the vehicle. However, the manufacturers 
receive some claims and complaints that lack this information. In those 
instances where manufacturers are uncertain as to which brake or fuel 
category is appropriate, the Alliance states that the manufacturers 
generally do report the incident by categorizing it in the system with 
the highest production volume for the model that is the subject of the 
claim or complaint. The associations contend that this practice leads 
to erroneous comparisons between two vehicles with different brake and 
fuel systems.
    NHTSA is concerned, among other things, about the accuracy of EWR 
data. ODI assessed whether the brake and fuel system categories in the 
EWR rule should be collapsed into one category for each system in order 
to improve the functioning of the EWR rule.
    The Alliance is correct that in the MHB industry segment, some 
models of vehicles have different types of brakes and operate on 
different fuels. Relatively lighter vehicles have hydraulic brakes 
while the heavy vehicles have air brakes. There is not a precise bright 
line that divides the use of the systems. Based on available 
information, we estimate that about one-sixth of the average annual 
production of MHBs is produced with more than one type of brake system. 
For the fuel system category, approximately two-fifths of the average 
annual production of models of MHB vehicles have more than one type of 
fuel system, generally gasoline and diesel fuel.
    The Alliance and TMA expressed concern that if significant amounts 
of data were binned into the incorrect brake and fuel system 
subcategories, an incorrect analysis could follow. In our view, 
however, at most a very small percentage of the data may have been 
binned incorrectly. Warranty claims data account for 94 percent of all 
aggregate data on MHBs, while field reports constitute 3 percent. 
Warranty claims and field reports almost always contain a VIN because 
the manufacturer's authorized dealer or representative has access to 
the vehicle and, in the case of warranty claims, a vehicle manufacturer 
will not pay a warranty claim unless the claim includes the VIN. In the 
vast majority of cases, the VIN identifies the type of brake or fuel 
systems on the vehicle. Since almost all of the MHB EWR aggregate data 
would be based on the VIN, in general, the reports would be accurate.
    Moreover, there is considerable value in knowing the nature of the 
underlying brake or fuel system. ODI's defects investigations and 
manufacturers' recalls related to fuel or brake systems frequently 
affect only one of the multiple fuel or brake systems offered on a 
particular model. Approximately one third of the brake system recalls 
and almost one third of the brake system defects investigations of MHB 
vehicles involved models where manufacturers offered either hydraulic 
or air brake systems. Similarly, over one third of the defects 
investigations and recalls of MHB vehicles involved models where 
manufacturers offered either gasoline or diesel fuel systems. Were 
NHTSA to combine the two brake systems and three fuel systems into one 
each for brake and fuel systems, we would be unable to distinguish 
whether the EWR data related to a particular brake or fuel system, 
which would limit our use of the data. A potential problem in one 
subset of brake or fuels data could be masked if the subsets of brake 
and fuel data were combined. Thus, combining the brake and fuel system 
subcategories for MHB vehicles would possibly obscure a potential 
safety issue in

[[Page 52046]]

vehicles with distinct brake or fuel systems and make identifying a 
potential safety trend more difficult.
    The Alliance's and TMA's recommendation to combine the brake system 
subcategories and the fuel system subcategories would increase the 
overall likelihood that ODI would not identify a potential problem 
because trends in the less distinct component subcategories would tend 
to be masked within a broader category of numbers. Therefore, we 
decline to adopt the Alliance's and TMA's recommendation to combine the 
brake and fuel system subcategories into one category for each system.
    However, in order to reduce the potential for erroneous analyses, 
NHTSA is proposing to amend the MHB fuel system subcategory. The agency 
is proposing to amend the component category ``09 Fuel System Other'' 
to ``09 Fuel System Other/Unknown''. Under this proposal, as a matter 
of practice, manufacturers would not report the vehicles with unknown 
fuel systems in the fuel system category with the highest production. 
This would tend to increase the quality of the data by eliminating 
unknown data from within the component subcategories of gasoline and 
diesel fuel systems, although as noted above, we do not believe that 
the error rate is significant. This modification would require a minor 
amendment to section 579.22 and would not appear to require a costly 
change to the EWR IT infrastructure for manufacturers or NHTSA because 
the current reporting system already has an ``other'' subcategory for 
fuel systems, which can simply be amended to include those that are 
unknown. However, the current system does not include an ``other'' 
subcategory for brake systems, so we cannot address the issue of 
unknown brake systems without adding a new subcategory. We seek comment 
on this proposed change.
    NHTSA is also seeking comment on whether the agency should, rather 
than merely expanding the ``other'' subcategory for fuel systems to 
become ``other/unknown,'' add new subcategories to one or both of the 
brake and fuel component categories. Under this approach, the agency 
would add ``Fuel System Unknown'' and ``Brake System Unknown'' to MHB 
reports. With the addition of these two subcategories, the vehicles 
with unknown fuel or unknown brake systems would be binned into 
distinct subcategories, thus improving the quality of the data in other 
categories. However, this alternative might require appreciable costs 
to both manufacturers and NHTSA, as the IT infrastructure for EWR would 
have to be changed. We seek comment on this potential amendment. We 
also seek comment on the costs that manufacturers would incur if this 
alternative were adopted. We also are interested in comments on whether 
the benefits of improved data would outweigh the costs incurred by 
manufacturers if this were adopted.

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.
    The Alliance expressed concern about the open-ended nature of the 
updating requirement. According to the Alliance, only a small 
percentage of reports require updating, with manufacturers only able to 
provide a newly-identified VIN in fewer than one-third of those cases 
where the VIN was originally unavailable. The Alliance adds that even 
fewer updates involve an originally-unknown and unreported system or 
component code. It contends that the agency receives very little 
additional information through updating. In addition, the Alliance 
asserts any new information supplied through updating most likely has 
very little value, since with the passage of time, the information 
loses any value that it might have had as an ``early'' warning of 
potential defects. It further contends that updating imposes a 
significant burden in those rare instances where outside counsel learn 
of a missing VIN or component. The Alliance also claims that providing 
updates on death and injury incidents imposes a substantial 
administrative burden on manufacturers because the updating process 
requires manufacturers to revise and resubmit the entire data file for 
the calendar quarter being updated.
    The agency has considered the burdens and benefits of updating 
death and injury reports. About 95 percent of the EWR reports on 
incidents involving a death or injury include a VIN or a TIN when 
initially submitted by manufacturers. About 94 percent of the initial 
reports include the allegedly contributing system or component. After 
accounting for updating, the number of death and injury incidents in 
the EWR database that include a VIN or a TIN increases to about 96 
percent, and the number that include component identifications 
increases to about 95 percent. Most of the updates to an incomplete or 
unknown VIN or component are submitted within one year after the 
initial EWR submission.
    In view of the above, NHTSA's tentative assessment is that updating 
involves a small burden and provides a modest benefit. The Alliance 
overstates the burden imposed on manufacturers to update the EWR 
reports on death or injury. First, the vast majority of reports do not 
require updates. Only five percent do not include the VIN or TIN. 
Second, when information is missing, prior to a lawsuit, in-house 
counsel and, after a lawsuit, outside counsel need simply to check once 
a quarter for the VIN or TIN and component or system involved, which is 
particularly basic information. The information can readily be 
communicated from outside counsel, to a paralegal in the office of in-
house counsel, and from there to the company's EWR coordinator. 
Finally, in our view, it is not overly burdensome for manufacturers to 
edit a quarterly EWR submission. To provide an update, a manufacturer 
would only have to update an existing data file such as changing a 
value in a table. After amending it, the manufacturer merely has to 
electronically communicate it to NHTSA to submit the update.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Contrary to the Alliance's belief, there is no burden on 
NHTSA when manufacturers provide updates. Manufacturers can update 
their reported incidents of death and injury at anytime without 
intervention by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that information on deaths and injuries is 
important. Updating is necessary to provide complete and accurate 
information relating to death and injury incidents as an early indicant 
of a potential safety-related trend. The requirement for updates also 
serves as an inducement for manufacturers to undertake a thorough 
effort to obtain the information

[[Page 52047]]

for the initial submission, in order to conclude the reporting 
obligation. Thus, NHTSA is not proposing to eliminate the updating 
requirement in 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2).
    Nonetheless, it appears that at some stage the likelihood of 
obtaining missing information on VINs/TINs and the systems and 
components that allegedly contributed to the incident diminishes 
substantially. As a result, at some point it would not be worthwhile to 
continue the updating process. The agency tentatively believes that 
since about 95 percent of the initial reports contain the VIN/TIN and 
94 percent identify the component or system that allegedly contributed 
to the incident, and the majority of the updates occur within one (1) 
year after the incidents of death and injury were initially reported to 
NHTSA, it would be appropriate to discontinue the requirement to update 
the reports on incidents of death or injury one year after the incident 
is initially reported to the agency. In other words, updating would be 
required for four quarters or less. We believe this approach would 
reduce some of the burden on manufacturers, and that the EWR program 
would not be adversely affected by the absence of the information that 
would no longer be received after one year. 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.
    Therefore, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 579.28(f)(i) 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 further proposes to amend 49 CFR 579.28(f)(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.

    We seek comments on our proposal to limit the requirement to update 
incidents of death and injury identified in claims and notices received 
by the manufacturer up to one year after the incident is received by 
the agency.

IV. Request for Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address shown at the beginning 
of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments 
electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under 
ADDRESSES.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit the following to the Chief Counsel 
(NCC-110) at the address given at the beginning of this document under 
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) A complete copy of the 
submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential 
information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those 
portions of the submission containing the material for which 
confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that 
you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your 
confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that 
complies with 49 CFR part 512 must accompany the complete submission 
provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who 
plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their 
submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those 
sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to 
adhere to the requirements of part 512 may result in the release of 
confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should 
submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the 
beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at 
the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our 
policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that 
Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in 
developing the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal 
suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address and times given near the beginning of this document under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (https://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (https://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. 
Example: if the docket number were ``NHTSA-2001-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.''
    (4) After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the 
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see.
    You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, 
in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment 
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the 
docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late 
comments. Accordingly, we

[[Page 52048]]

recommend that you periodically search the docket for new material.

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 https://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.
    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 proposed rule are expected to be so 
minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation 
because this proposal 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, modifying a ``Fuel Systems'' category for medium-
heavy trucks and buses, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not be significant. This notice 
proposes to eliminate the reporting of product evaluation field 
reports, revise the definition of fire, modify the reporting of fuel 
systems for medium-heavy vehicles and buses, and limit the time period 
for required updates to a few data elements in reports of deaths and 
injuries. The effect of these proposed changes would be to reduce 
annual reporting costs to manufacturers. The proposed modification 
relating to reporting of fuel systems on medium-heavy vehicles and 
buses would entail a small first-year cost for manufacturers of those 
vehicles to change their respective systems. NHTSA expects the impact 
of the proposed rule would