Reporting of Early Warning Information, 29435-29444 [E7-10155]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29435-29444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10155]



[[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 https://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