Early Warning Reporting Regulations, 74101-74123 [E8-28873]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 235 (Friday, December 5, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74101-74123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28873]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0169; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AK28


Early Warning Reporting Regulations

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to certain provisions of the 
early warning reporting (EWR) rule published pursuant to the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act, responds to a petition for rulemaking, and proposes 
amendments to information identifying products involved in a recall 
under 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and 
Reports. This document proposes to modify the threshold for submitting 
quarterly EWR reports for light vehicle, bus, and trailer 
manufacturers. It further proposes to require manufacturers to submit 
product names that are consistent from reporting quarter to quarter or 
advise NHTSA of changes; to add a requirement that light vehicle 
manufacturers specify the vehicle type and the fuel or propulsion 
system type of each model in their quarterly EWR submissions; to add a 
new component category for light vehicle manufacturers; and to correct 
the definition of ``other safety campaign.'' It also proposes to amend 
part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to add a 
requirement that tire manufacturers provide tire identification numbers 
of recalled tires and manufacturers provide the country of origin of a 
component involved in a recall.

DATES: Written comments regarding these proposed rule changes may be 
submitted to NHTSA and must be received on or before: February 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the 
following methods:
     Mail: Send Comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building, RM. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the 
U.S. Government regulations Web site at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Once here, follow the online instructions for submitting comments to an 
NPRM.
     Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by 
hand or courier, please do so at West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Whichever way you submit your comments, please remember to mention 
the docket number of this document within your correspondence. The 
docket may be accessed via phone at 202-366-9324.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to these proposed 
rule changes 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. Please note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking 
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

Introduction
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Background
    A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule
    B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports
    C. Scope of This Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Statutory Background on Early Warning and Notification 
Requirements
    B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning 
Reporting
    C. Light Vehicles
    D. Trailers
    E. Buses
    F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles and Motorcycles
    G. Response to the National Truck Equipment Association Petition 
for Rulemaking
    H. Data Consistency

[[Page 74102]]

    I. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle Aggregate Data
    J. New Component Category for Light Vehicles and Reporting by 
Fuel and/or Propulsion System
    K. Lead Time
    L. Technical Correction to the Definition of Customer 
Satisfaction Campaign and Other Safety Campaign
    M. Amendments to Information Required To Be Submitted in a Part 
573 Defect or Noncompliance Information Reports
IV. Request for Comments
V. Privacy Act Statement
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Proposed Regulatory Text

Introduction

    In October 2000, Congress enacted the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which the 
President signed into law on November 1, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-414). TREAD 
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 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 or about December 1, 2003. However, actual copies of field 
reports were first submitted on or about July 1, 2004. 68 FR 35145, 
35148 (June 11, 2003). Accordingly, NHTSA has just over four years of 
experience using the EWR information.
    The Early Warning Division of the Office of Defects Investigation 
(ODI) reviews and analyzes a huge volume of early warning data and 
documents submitted by manufacturers. Using both its traditional 
sources of information, such as complaints from vehicle owner 
questionnaires (VOQs) and manufacturers' own communications, as well as 
the additional quantum of information provided by EWR submissions, ODI 
conducts many investigations of potential safety defects and influences 
manufacturers to conduct recalls where defects have been determined to 
be present. In 2007, for example, manufacturers recalled more than 13 
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. When it had completed two full years of 
reporting in 2006, NHTSA began its review of the rule and presented 
proposed rule changes for public comment based on these evaluations.
    NHTSA is evaluating the EWR rule in two phases. NHTSA completed 
phase one in 2007 and, after notice and comment, published a final rule 
on May 29, 2007. 72 FR 29435. The May 2007 final rule made three (3) 
changes to the EWR rule. First, the agency eliminated the requirement 
to produce hard copies of a subset of field reports known as ``product 
evaluation reports.'' See 72 FR 29435, 29443. Second, the final rule 
amended the definition of fire to more accurately capture fire-related 
events. Id. Last, under the phase one final rule, the agency limited 
the requirement to update missing vehicle identification number (VIN)/
tire identification number (TIN) or components on incidents of death or 
injury to a period of no more than one year after NHTSA receives the 
initial report. 72 FR 29444.
    The majority of this document contains the second part of our 
evaluation of the EWR rule. This rulemaking addresses issues that 
required more analysis than those addressed in the first phase. In this 
phase, we address the threshold level for providing comprehensive 
quarterly EWR reports for certain industry categories. This required 
studying and assessing 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.
    This document also contains proposals that amend part 573 Defect 
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports to require further 
information that identifies the tire identification number (TIN) of all 
the tires within the scope of a recall by a tire manufacturer and 
identifies the country of origin of recalled components. In part 573, 
we also propose to add an optional method to submit the TINs by 
uploading them directly to ODI via ODI's Web site.

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. Under today's 
proposal, the EWR reporting threshold would be modified for some 
categories of vehicle manufacturers and a new requirement would be 
added to require manufacturers to provide consistent naming conventions 
for their models that are consistent from quarter to quarter. In 
addition, we propose to add one component to the light vehicle 
reporting category and require light vehicle manufacturers to specify 
the vehicle type and the fuel and/or propulsion system type.

[[Page 74103]]

    Under the EWR rule, certain motor vehicle manufacturers and motor 
vehicle equipment manufacturers are required to report information and 
submit documents to NHTSA that could be used to identify safety-related 
defects. The amount and frequency of reporting required of a 
manufacturer is dependent upon the level of its annual production 
volume.
    The EWR regulation requires manufacturers of light vehicles and 
manufacturers of trailers to submit quarterly reports if they produce 
500 or more vehicles or trailers annually. Manufacturers of light 
vehicles or trailers that produce fewer than 500 vehicles or trailers 
annually do not submit quarterly reports. These manufacturers are 
required to submit a report to NHTSA when they receive a claim or 
notice identifying an incident that involves a death. 49 CFR 579.27. 
Today's proposed rule would raise the EWR threshold for light vehicle 
manufacturers and trailer manufacturers from 500 or more units to 5,000 
or more units. Manufacturers in the light vehicle and trailer 
categories producing 5,000 or more units annually would be required to 
report on a quarterly basis. Those light vehicle and trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 units per year would have a 
lower reporting burden, only being required to submit information 
related to incidents that involve a death.
    Similar to light vehicles and trailers, the EWR regulation requires 
manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles and buses to submit quarterly 
reports if they produce 500 or more vehicles annually. These 
manufacturers are required to report more comprehensive data on a 
quarterly basis, while those with a production volume below this 
threshold are required to submit information only on incidents that 
involve a death. Today's proposed rule would eliminate the reporting 
threshold for manufacturers of buses, which would require all 
manufacturers of buses to provide quarterly EWR reports.
    Today's proposed rule would add new requirements that would require 
vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide consistent naming 
conventions for their products that are consistent from quarter to 
quarter, or provide NHTSA with timely notice of any changes, and to 
require light vehicle manufacturers to include the vehicle type in the 
aggregate portion of their quarterly EWR reports.
    Today's proposed rule would add one new component to the light 
vehicle reporting category and add a requirement that manufacturers 
specify their fuel and/or propulsion system when providing model 
designations. The new component is electronic stability control. These 
two amendments are intended to capture new technologies that have been 
introduced to the light vehicle market.
    Last, today's proposed rule amends two subsections of section 573.6 
to add language that will require further information that identifies 
the tire identification number (TIN) of all the tires within the scope 
of a recall by a tire manufacturer and identifies the country of origin 
of recalled components in a manufacturer's Part 573 Defect or 
Noncompliance Information Report. Specifically, we are proposing to 
amend 573.6(c)(2)(iii) to add a requirement to report tire 
identification numbers (TINs) and 573.6(c)(2)(iv) to add a requirement 
to identify the country of origin of a component that is the subject of 
a recall. We also propose to add language to section 573.9 to 
facilitate the submission of reports affected by the proposal to 
require TINs.

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. This 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 every 
calendar quarter. 49 CFR 579.21-26. The second group consists of 
smaller vehicle manufacturers (e.g., manufacturers of fewer than 500 
vehicles annually) and all motor vehicle equipment manufacturers other 
than those in the first group. The second group has limited reporting 
responsibility. 49 CFR 579.27.
    On a quarterly basis, manufacturers in the first group must provide 
comprehensive quarterly reports for each make and model for the 
calendar year of the report and nine previous model years. Tire and 
child restraint manufacturers must provide comprehensive reports for 
the calendar year of the report and four previous production years. 
Each report is subdivided so that the information on each make and 
model is provided by specified vehicle systems and components. The 
vehicle systems or components 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 manufacturers 
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,

[[Page 74104]]

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, these manufacturers are required to submit 
copies of field reports, except field reports by dealers (referred to 
as ``non-dealer field reports'') and product evaluation reports.
    In contrast to the comprehensive quarterly reports provided by 
manufacturers in the first group, the second group of manufacturers 
does not have to provide quarterly reports. These manufacturers only 
submit information about a death incident when they receive a claim or 
notice of a death.

B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, manufacturers are required 
to provide notice to the Secretary if the manufacturer determines that 
a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect 
related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable 
motor vehicle safety standard. The regulation implementing the 
manufacturer's requirement to provide notice to NHTSA is located at 49 
CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, 
which, among other things, requires manufacturers to provide reports 
(commonly referred to as Defect or Noncompliance reports, as the case 
may be) to NHTSA on defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment and noncompliances with motor vehicle safety standards 
prescribed under 49 CFR part 571. Section 573.6 specifies the 
information that manufacturers are required to submit to the agency and 
Section 573.9 specifies the address for submitting reports. An 
important element of the notice to NHTSA is the identification of the 
component containing the defect or noncompliance. Section 
573.6(c)(2)(iii) requires manufacturers to identify items of motor 
vehicle equipment by the generic name of the component (tires, child 
seating system, axles, etc.), part number, size and function if 
applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacturer if 
available and any other information to describe the items. Section 
573.6(c)(2)(iv) requires manufacturers to identify the manufacturer of 
the component that contains the defect or noncompliance if the 
component was manufactured by a different manufacturer. In such a case, 
the reporting manufacturer must identify the component and the 
manufacturer of the component by name, business address, and business 
telephone number.

C. Scope of This Rulemaking

    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. After we gained two full years of 
reporting experience, we commenced our evaluation.
    NHTSA is evaluating the EWR rule in two phases. The first phase 
covered definitional issues and culminated in the final rule published 
on May 29, 2007. 72 FR 29435. Today's proposed rule is the culmination 
of the second phase of our evaluation.
    Today's proposed rule is limited in scope to the amendments to the 
EWR requirements and the part 573 notification requirements proposed in 
this NPRM, as well as logical outgrowths of the proposal. Excluding the 
proposed changes noted above in the summary section, NHTSA intends to 
leave the remaining current EWR regulations and part 573 regulations 
unchanged.

III. Discussion

A. Statutory Background on Early Warning and Notification Requirements

    Under the early warning reporting requirements of the TREAD Act, 
NHTSA is required to issue a rule establishing reporting requirements 
for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to 
enhance the agency's ability to carry out the provisions of Chapter 301 
of Title 49, United States Code, which is commonly referred to as the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act or Safety Act. 49 U.S.C. 
30166(m)(1), (2). Under one subsection of the early warning provisions, 
NHTSA is to require reports of information in the manufacturers' 
possession to the extent that such information may assist in the 
identification of safety-related defects and which concern, inter alia, 
data on claims for deaths and aggregate statistical data on property 
damage. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A)(i); see also 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(C). 
Another subsection authorizes the agency to require manufacturers to 
report information that may assist in the identification of safety 
defects. Specifically, section 30166(m)(3)(B) states:

    Other data.--As part of the final rule * * * the Secretary may, 
to the extent that such information may assist in the identification 
of defects related to motor vehicle safety in motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment in the United States, require manufacturers 
of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to report, periodically 
or upon request of the Secretary, such information as the Secretary 
may request.

This subsection conveys substantial authority and discretion to the 
agency. Most EWR data, with the exception of information on deaths and 
property damage claims, is reported under regulations authorized by 
this provision.
    The agency's discretion is not unfettered. NHTSA may not impose 
undue burdens upon manufacturers, taking into account the cost incurred 
by manufacturers to report EWR data and the agency's ability to use the 
EWR data meaningfully to assist in the identification of safety 
defects. More specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(D) provides:

    (D) Burdensome requirements.--In promulgating the final rule 
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not impose requirements 
unduly burdensome to a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment, taking into account the manufacturer's cost of 
complying with such requirements and the Secretary's ability to use 
the information sought in a meaningful manner to assist in the 
identification of defects related to motor vehicle safety.

    The Safety Act also requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or 
items of motor vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA and owners and 
purchasers of the vehicle or equipment if the manufacturer determines 
that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a 
defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an 
applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) & (c). 
Manufacturers must provide notification pursuant to the procedures set 
forth in section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section 30119 sets forth the 
contents of the notification, which includes a clear description of the 
defect or noncompliance, the timing of the notification, means of 
providing notification and when a second notification is required. 49 
U.S.C. 30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 confers considerable 
authority and discretion to NHTSA, by rulemaking, to require additional 
information in manufacturers' notifications. See 49 U.S.C. 30119(a)(7).

[[Page 74105]]

B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting

    As part of our evaluation of the reporting thresholds for 
comprehensive reporting under the EWR rule, the agency is endeavoring 
to ensure that it collects a body of information that may assist in the 
identification of defects related to motor vehicle safety in motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We are also considering the 
burden on manufacturers. In view of our authority, stated in the 
statute in broad terms, to require reporting of information to the 
extent that such information may assist in the identification of 
defects related to motor vehicle safety, we do not believe that it is 
necessary or appropriate to identify a prescriptive list of factors for 
delineating a reporting threshold. Nonetheless, based on our 
experience, the following considerations, among other things, have been 
identified as relevant to evaluating whether EWR information assists or 
would assist in the identification of safety-related defects:
     The number of manufacturers in a particular class of 
vehicles or equipment.
     The proportion of manufacturers reporting in a particular 
class of vehicles or equipment.
     The number of vehicles or items of equipment at issue.
     Whether the vehicles carry large numbers of people.
     The safety risks attendant to a particular class of motor 
vehicles.
     The nature/amount of EWR data that the manufacturers have 
reported or would report.
     Whether the EWR data have been useful or may be useful in 
opening investigations into potential safety related defects and 
whether those investigations have resulted or may result in recalls.
     The effect that the reduction and or addition of EWR data 
would have on the quantity and quality of the data and ODI's ability to 
open investigations and identify possible safety-related defects.
     ODI's ability to monitor a group of vehicles and identify 
possible defects without EWR data.
     The burden on manufacturers.
     The burden on NHTSA.
    We emphasize that the general approach of the EWR program is to 
collect very large amounts of data on numerous systems and components 
in a very wide range and volume of vehicles and, to a lesser degree, 
equipment, and for the agency to then systematically review 
information, with the end result being the identification of a 
relatively small number of potential safety problems, compared to the 
amount of data collected and reviewed. These data are considered along 
with other information collected by and available to the agency in 
deciding whether to open investigations.
    After extensive review of the EWR data currently collected, today's 
proposal would reduce overall the number of manufacturers that must 
provide comprehensive EWR submissions. The amount and usefulness of 
data that would no longer be required to be submitted would not be 
significant to NHTSA in assisting in the identification of safety 
related defects. Our proposal follows.

C. Light Vehicles

    The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers that 
produce 500 or more vehicles per year to provide quarterly EWR reports 
to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.21. Light vehicle manufacturers that produce fewer 
than 500 vehicles are not required to provide quarterly reports to 
NHTSA, but must provide information related to a claim or notice 
alleging a death received by the manufacturer. 49 CFR 579.27.
    The light vehicle EWR reporting sector includes about 60 
manufacturers. These companies submit an immense amount of EWR data to 
NHTSA every quarter. For instance, in the third quarter of 2007, they 
submitted EWR data reflecting approximately 2,300 property damage 
claims, 11.7 million warranty claims, 600,000 consumer complaints and 
395,000 field reports \2\ on 169 million light vehicles. In general, 
these data consist of numerical tallies (aggregate data) for specified 
components and systems on light vehicles. In light of the large number 
of distinct models (products) and the number of reporting subcategories 
(see 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c)),\3\ the light vehicle data consist of 
over 200,000 potential product-components (the number of distinct 
models reported by light vehicle manufacturers multiplied by the number 
of components for which reporting is required in the EWR light vehicle 
category). In addition to the large amount of aggregate data, light 
vehicle manufacturers submitted approximately 20,000 copies of field 
reports in the third quarter of 2007. Also in the third quarter of 
2007, the agency received information on approximately 1,100 death and 
injury incidents, which consist of specific information for each 
incident, including the number of deaths and/or injuries, the state or 
foreign country where the incident occurred and the specified 
components, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A field report is defined as a communication in writing, 
including communications in electronic form, from an employee or 
representative of a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment, a dealer or authorized service facility of such 
manufacturer, or an entity known to the manufacturer as owning or 
operating a fleet, to the manufacturer regarding the failure, 
malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, 
produced for sale by that manufacturer and transported beyond the 
direct control of the manufacturer, regardless of whether verified 
or assessed to be lacking in merit, but does not include any 
document covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work 
product exclusion. See 49 CFR 579.4.
    \3\ See footnote 1 for a list of vehicle components or systems 
that light vehicle manufacturers must report on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA employs several methods to identify potential concerns in the 
data. For example, for the aggregate information, ODI undertakes data 
mining and trend analysis to search for outliers and trends in the 
data. Outliers usually relate to specific product-components for which 
there may be a spike in the EWR data within a particular model and 
quarter. Trend analysis looks at the EWR data over time, such as the 
historical frequency, the amount of variation in data, current trend 
and anticipated future values. For the death and injury information, 
ODI compares the current quarter data to previous quarters of data on 
incidents involving a death or injury. For the copies of field reports, 
ODI manually reviews the field reports to identify those related to 
potential safety concerns. If any of the EWR data raise a potential 
concern, ODI then reviews other information sources such as other EWR 
data, recalls, complaints/Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), 
technical service bulletins, Web-based technical sources, and other 
information sources that may be available. ODI may also send an 
information request to a manufacturer for additional information 
related to the manufacturer's EWR data. Based on the agency's 
assessment of the potential presence of a safety-related defect, ODI 
may then open an investigation.
    Since the first quarter of EWR reporting, EWR light vehicle data 
has assisted or prompted 48 ODI investigations into potential safety 
defects in light vehicles, with the aggregate data or field reports 
(non-dealer) data sets most often providing the more useful 
information. Overall, these investigations resulted in 30 recalls 
involving more than 15 million units. A few of the investigations 
resulted in more than one recall. Many investigations ODI initiated in 
2007 and 2008 are ongoing so there is a potential for the number of 
recalls based on investigations prompted or assisted by EWR data to 
increase.

[[Page 74106]]

    In general, light vehicle manufacturers that produce a significant 
volume of vehicles submit substantial amounts of EWR data. On the other 
hand, light vehicle manufacturers that produce relatively small numbers 
of vehicles, albeit at or above the 500 or more vehicles annually, 
generally do not submit much EWR information per quarter. This appears 
to be related to their relatively low production volumes. These 
relatively low-volume light vehicle manufacturers' EWR reports on 
various components or systems not uncommonly amount to zero (0) or one 
(1) complaint, claim or field report for a particular model. In 
contrast, larger light vehicle manufacturers provide reports with far 
more and larger numbers.
    As NHTSA has observed in the past, the more robust the EWR data 
base, the better NHTSA is able to identify changes in trends or 
otherwise identify potential hazards. In contrast, the limited amount 
of EWR data from the relatively small light vehicle manufacturers is of 
little, if any, assistance to ODI in detecting potential safety-related 
defects. For example, a small light vehicle manufacturer contains zero 
(0) property damage claims for a particular product-component in a 
reporting quarter, then one (1) property damage claim the next quarter, 
followed by several quarters of zero (0) property damage claims. Using 
available methodologies, ODI cannot decipher possible trends that may 
be indicative of defects. ODI's reviews of the EWR submissions from the 
smaller-volume light vehicle manufacturers have not been productive in 
assisting it in identifying possible safety-related defects in light 
vehicles.
    NHTSA considered a reporting threshold level higher than 500 or 
more vehicles annually when the EWR rule was adopted. In the July 2002 
rule, we considered and rejected comments from industry that NHTSA set 
the threshold for triggering quarterly EWR reporting at 2,500 or 10,000 
vehicles annually. 67 FR 45832. At that time, the agency stated that 
``if experience shows that we do not get valuable information from 
relatively small vehicle manufacturers, we can and will adjust the 
threshold in the future.'' Id.
    A year and one-half later, the agency again addressed the threshold 
level for EWR reporting. On January 23, 2004, NHTSA published a Federal 
Register notice denying petitions for reconsideration from the 
following industry associations: The National Association of Trailer 
Manufacturers (NATM), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) 
and the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA). 69 FR 3292. 
These industry associations petitioned the agency to raise the 500 
annual vehicle production threshold for comprehensive EWR reporting, 
with NTEA and RVIA recommending 5,000 vehicles per year as the 
appropriate threshold. While we rejected raising the threshold at that 
time, we stated that ``if we find that the information submitted by 
relatively small vehicle manufacturers does not help in the prompt 
identification of safety defects, we will commence a rulemaking 
proceeding to adjust the reporting requirements appropriately.'' \4\ 69 
FR 3297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In late 2005 and early 2006, the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, National Truck Equipment Association and Truck 
Manufacturers Association all requested to have the vehicle 
reporting threshold raised to 5,000 units annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively believe that NHTSA's experience in reviewing 4 years 
of EWR reports provides a sufficient basis for adjustment of certain 
EWR reporting thresholds. Nonetheless, we are proceeding with some 
caution, as the agency should not act in a way that would meaningfully 
limit the agency's capabilities.
    We are proposing to raise the reporting threshold for light vehicle 
manufacturers in 49 CFR 579.21 to 5,000 vehicles per year from 500 
vehicles per year. This would reduce the number of reporting 
manufacturers from 60 to 30.
    Only three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) of all light vehicles are 
produced by manufacturers that make fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually. 
Almost all of the light vehicle EWR data is submitted by manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more vehicles annually. In the third quarter of 
2007, manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually 
reported only 0.2% (19,224 data points) of the total aggregate data in 
the third quarter of 2007.
    Furthermore, manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 light 
vehicles annually do not submit large numbers of copies of non-dealer 
field reports.\5\ Only two small volume light vehicle manufacturers 
have submitted copies of field reports. In 15 quarters of EWR 
reporting, these two manufacturers submitted a total of 61 copies of 
field reports. The information in these reports has not been used to 
identify a safety-related concern. In contrast, larger-volume light 
vehicle manufacturers submit hundreds or thousands of copies of field 
reports per quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Manufacturers are required to submit the number of product 
evaluation reports in their quarterly EWR reports, but are no longer 
required to submit hard copies of them to NHTSA. 72 FR 29435, 29437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past five (5) years, the vast majority of all safety-
related light vehicle recalls have been conducted by manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more vehicles annually. Between January 2003 and 
January 2008, there were a total of 646 light vehicle recalls. Of these 
recalls, 93 percent involved manufacturers producing 5,000 or more 
vehicles annually. More significantly, none of the EWR data submitted 
by light vehicle manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
annually prompted an investigation leading to one of these recalls. In 
fact, all of the ODI light vehicle investigations that were influenced 
by EWR data involved vehicles from manufacturers that produced 5,000 or 
more light vehicles annually. In the past five years, only two recalls 
pertaining to manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 light 
vehicles annually were influenced by ODI. These two recalls involved 
vehicles where ODI had information other than EWR data to prompt its 
investigations. One such recall involved handicap accessible vans in 
which the wheelchair securement retractor assemblies can fail resulting 
in the securement system not supporting the wheelchair in a crash 
(NHTSA Recall No. 04V-589). The other recall involved vans with Sure-
lok wheelchair securement systems that can fail resulting in injuries 
to the wheelchair occupant because the wheelchair may not be adequately 
secured in a crash (NHTSA Recall No. 06V075).
    If the proposed production reporting threshold of 5,000 or more 
vehicles is adopted, approximately 30 light vehicle manufacturers would 
no longer have to submit quarterly EWR reports. As noted above, the EWR 
data submitted by the relatively small volume light vehicle 
manufacturers is limited and has not yielded any assistance in the 
prompt identification of potential safety defects. Thus, ODI would lose 
very little data that would appear to be helpful to the program.
    Even though 30 light vehicle manufacturers will no longer report 
EWR data quarterly, NHTSA will still have an ability to monitor the 
vehicles made by these relatively small volume manufacturers for 
potential safety concerns. Those manufacturers under the proposed 
threshold will still be required to report information related to a 
death in a claim or a notice received by the manufacturer. NHTSA will 
also continue to receive the traditional screening information on these 
vehicles, such as VOQs. In the light vehicle category, NHTSA receives 
substantially

[[Page 74107]]

more VOQs from owners of light vehicles than any other industry sector 
in EWR.
    Raising the reporting threshold would also have the effect of 
reducing the EWR reporting burden on light vehicle manufacturers that 
currently produce 500 or more vehicles, but fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
annually. These manufacturers would no longer incur the costs 
associated with collecting and reporting comprehensive quarterly 
reports to NHTSA.
    Based upon the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.21 to 
raise the reporting threshold for light vehicle manufacturers from its 
current level of 500 or more vehicles produced annually to 5,000 or 
more vehicles produced annually. We seek comment on this proposed 
revised reporting threshold.

D. Trailers

    The EWR regulation requires trailer manufacturers that produce 500 
or more trailers annually to submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 
CFR 579.24. Trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 500 vehicles 
are not required to provide quarterly reports to NHTSA, but must 
provide information related to a claim or notice alleging a death 
received by the manufacturer. 49 CFR 579.27.
    Under the EWR rule, the agency receives a large amount of data 
related to trailers every quarter. Approximately 250 trailer 
manufacturers submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. For the third 
quarter of 2007, trailer manufacturers submitted approximately 180 
property damage claims, 51,000 warranty claims, 5,000 consumer 
complaints and 1,000 field reports on 14 million trailers. With a large 
number of distinct models, the trailer category consists of over 
1,800,000 potential product-components (the number of distinct models 
reported by trailer manufacturers multiplied by the number of 
components in EWR). In contrast to the large amount of electronic data 
submitted, trailer manufacturers provide limited data on deaths and 
injuries and copies of non-dealer field reports. The agency received 
approximately six (6) death and injury incidents and twenty (20) copies 
of non-dealer field reports for the third quarter of 2007.
    In order to review and analyze the EWR trailer data, ODI employs 
the same methods used to identify potential concerns in the light 
vehicle data. Like the EWR light vehicle data, the EWR trailer data is 
limited to the information in the possession of the manufacturer, which 
is then submitted to NHTSA. Smaller volume trailer manufacturers submit 
less data than the larger volume trailer manufacturers. Manufacturers 
that produce lower volumes of trailers generally do not collect much 
reportable EWR information per quarter. As a result of the limited 
amount of data they receive, the smaller manufacturers' EWR reports are 
mostly devoid of EWR data.
    The lack of data presents several challenges to ODI. Without the 
ability to statistically analyze such meager data in a meaningful way, 
the EWR data from the smaller trailer manufacturers must be reviewed 
manually. These reviews have not produced much in the way of assistance 
in the identification of any safety concerns with these smaller trailer 
manufacturers. Based upon the foregoing, we are proposing to raise the 
reporting threshold for the trailer category to 5,000 or more vehicles 
produced annually to ensure that our resources are used efficiently.
    As we discussed III.C above, a threshold level higher than 500 or 
more vehicles annually has been considered before by NHTSA. The January 
2004 rulemaking considered raising the trailer category reporting 
threshold to 5,000 or more trailers annually. In late 2006, NATM 
requested that the trailer category reporting threshold be raised to 
5,000 or more trailers produced annually. With trailers, our experience 
with four (4) full years of EWR reporting has shown that the EWR data 
provided by the relatively small volume trailer manufacturers has not 
yielded any assistance in the prompt identification of safety defects. 
Based upon this, we are proposing to raise the reporting threshold for 
the trailer category to the requested 5,000 or more trailers produced 
annually.
    While we propose to raise the threshold for the trailer category to 
5,000 or more trailers annually, we do not believe this elevated 
threshold will result in a meaningful reduction of EWR trailer data. 
Although raising the threshold for the trailer category to 5,000 
eliminates 190 trailer manufacturers from quarterly EWR reporting, our 
analysis indicates that the majority of the EWR trailer data that can 
be consistently analyzed is data submitted by trailer manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more trailers. Trailer manufacturers producing 5,000 
or more trailers account for nearly 80% of all trailer production 
volume. The majority of the aggregate trailer EWR data is also 
submitted by large volume trailer manufacturers. Trailer manufacturers 
producing 5,000 or more trailers annually submit 70% of the aggregate 
trailer data. Additionally, compared to the other vehicles types, 
trailers manufacturers submit very few copies of non-dealer field 
reports. In total, trailer manufacturers have submitted 549 non-dealer 
field reports in fifteen (15) EWR quarters. Only 30% of non-dealer 
field reports have been submitted by manufacturers that produce fewer 
than 5,000 trailers a year. The majority of these field reports deal 
with non-safety issues such as: Paint issues, rusty rivets, and non-
structural sheet-metal cracks.
    While the potential reduction in EWR trailer production and 
aggregate data appear to be greater when compared to the light vehicle 
category, we do not believe that raising the trailer category reporting 
threshold will reduce our ability to identify safety related concerns 
with the EWR trailer data. This is based upon the type of EWR 
submissions that will be eliminated from EWR reporting by raising the 
threshold. While trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 
trailers annually submit 30% of the aggregate data, our analysis of 
these data indicates that the aggregate data are sparsely populated and 
lack consistency. With trailer manufacturers, this is due in large part 
to the way the smaller trailer manufacturers operate their businesses. 
Smaller volume manufacturers often produce numerous trailer models with 
small production runs. As a result, the aggregate data submitted for 
these models have many product-component fields with zeros (0) or ones 
(1) (in other words there are zero or very few claims of any kind 
related to these particular trailers). This limited amount of product-
component information is insufficient to establish a trend that would 
provide an early warning of a potential safety concern. As a result, 
these EWR data are of limited use to ODI as part of its efforts to 
analyze the EWR data for potential safety issues with smaller trailer 
manufacturers.
    Our analysis of EWR trailer data indicates that when ODI did 
identify a potential safety concern, with one exception, it always 
concerned a trailer manufacturer with annual production of 5,000 or 
more trailers. Our analysis found that 80% of potential safety concerns 
were contained within the EWR data supplied by those manufacturers that 
produce 5,000 or more trailers annually. For example, in the third 
quarter of 2006, there were five (5) potential safety concerns 
identified by ODI, with four (4) associated with manufacturers with an 
annual production level 5,000 or more. We identified one potential 
safety concern within the EWR data provided by trailer manufacturers 
producing between 2,500 and 4,999 trailers. We did not identify any 
concerns in the EWR data submitted by manufacturers producing fewer 
than

[[Page 74108]]

2,500 trailers. Ultimately, the concerns identified did not result in 
ODI opening a defects investigation.
    Our analysis of EWR trailer data for the last five (5) years of 
reporting indicates, on the one hand, that the EWR data for trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers are insufficient to 
yield data that are likely to lead to ODI opening a defects 
investigation. On the other hand, it appears that ODI's traditional 
screening tools have proven effective at identifying safety concerns in 
the smaller volume trailer category and leading to a defects 
investigation. Over the past five (5) years, EWR data submitted by 
trailer manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers annually have 
not influenced any ODI investigations. From January 2003 through 
January 2008, there were 421 trailer recalls. Almost 40 percent (160) 
of those recalls were conducted by trailer manufacturers that produce 
more than 5,000 trailers per year. There were 121 trailer recalls 
conducted by trailer manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 
trailers per year. Of the 121 trailer recalls conducted by trailer 
manufacturers producing fewer than 5,000 trailers, 43 of those recalls 
were influenced by ODI.
    If the proposed reporting threshold were adopted, approximately 190 
trailer manufacturers (72% of trailer manufacturers) would no longer 
have to submit quarterly EWR reports. As noted above, ODI would lose 
some EWR data, but the EWR trailer data that provide detailed, usable 
information on safety concerns will continue to be submitted by 
manufacturers that produce 5,000 or more trailers annually. Even though 
some trailer manufacturers would no longer submit quarterly reports, 
ODI will still have the ability to monitor trailers manufactured by 
small volume manufacturers for potential safety concerns. Those 
manufacturers who produce fewer than 5,000 trailers per year will be 
required to continue to report information related to a death and any 
associated injuries. ODI will also continue to receive the traditional 
investigative screening information on these trailers, such as 
technical service bulletins.
    Raising the reporting threshold would also have the effect of 
reducing the EWR reporting burden on scores of trailer manufacturers 
that currently produce 500 or more vehicles, but fewer than 5,000 
vehicles. These manufacturers will no longer have the costs associated 
with collecting and reporting comprehensive quarterly reports to NHTSA, 
without compromising NHTSA's ability to detect potential safety 
concerns.
    Based upon the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.24 to 
raise the reporting threshold for trailer manufacturers from its 
current level of 500 or more trailers annually to 5,000 or more 
trailers annually. We seek comment on our proposal to raise the 
reporting threshold for trailer manufacturers.

E. Buses

    The EWR regulation requires medium-heavy vehicle and bus 
manufacturers that produce 500 or more units annually to submit 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22. Currently, there are 
approximately 25 bus manufacturers submitting quarterly EWR reports to 
NHTSA. For the third quarter of 2007, bus manufacturers submitted, for 
the aggregate data, approximately 25 property damage claims, 290,000 
warranty claims, 3,000 consumer complaints and 10,400 field reports on 
800,000 buses. They also submitted 645 copies of field reports.
    In our view, there is a significant need to amend the threshold 
level of reporting for manufacturers of buses. Buses--whether school 
buses, transit buses, or motorcoaches--have a unique character compared 
to other vehicles. These vehicles carry more occupants than other 
vehicle types, which means that safety risks on a per-vehicle basis are 
potentially greater with regard to buses. One crash involving a bus may 
result in multiple fatalities and injuries. Because of the potential 
for increased fatalities and injuries from bus crashes, NHTSA has 
reconsidered how it views buses within the EWR framework.
    Today, we propose to eliminate the reporting threshold for buses 
because of the potential for multiple fatalities and injuries from a 
single crash. In our view, the safety consequences surrounding a single 
bus crash increase the urgency of identifying safety concerns at the 
earliest time possible. We believe that in the case of buses it is 
paramount to ensure that any potential safety issue relating to these 
vehicles is detected at an early stage. Several bus crashes over the 
last few years have led us to reconsider the importance of creating a 
special status for bus manufacturers in EWR, much like we treat 
manufacturers of child restraints (all manufacturers of child 
restraints must submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA, regardless of 
annual production). Some of the recent bus crashes that have caused us 
to rethink the status of bus manufacturers for the purposes of EWR 
reporting are:
     On April 18, 2005, a school bus crash in Arlington, 
Virginia resulted in one (1) fatality and fourteen (14) injuries.
     On September 23, 2005, a motor coach bus carrying nursing 
home residents fleeing from Hurricane Rita caught fire outside Dallas, 
Texas resulting in twenty-three (23) fatalities.
     On November 20, 2006, a school bus crash in Huntsville, 
Alabama resulted in four (4) fatalities and 34 injuries.
     On March 2, 2007, a charter bus plunged from an overpass 
in Atlanta, Georgia resulting in seven (7) fatalities and twenty-eight 
(28) injuries.
     On February 19, 2008, four (4) students were killed and 
fourteen (14) injured in a school bus crash in Minnesota.
     On February 24, 2008, a motor coach traveling north of 
Scranton, Pennsylvania crashed and flipped over injuring 40 people.
    While we do not assert or even imply that bus manufacturers were 
responsible for any of these crashes or that manufacturing or design 
defects played a causal role, we do believe that they demonstrate the 
scale of the consequences that could occur should a defect cause a 
crash. As a result, we believe that universal reporting by bus 
manufacturers will provide the agency with information that may 
identify safety concerns at an early stage to prevent future crashes.
    We believe that the potential scale of the per-vehicle risk 
outweighs the potential for limited EWR data from the smaller bus 
manufacturers. As we have done in evaluating the thresholds for all 
vehicle categories, we carefully considered factors such as the 
likelihood of capturing data that will be useful in opening 
investigations in to safety defects and the safety risks associated 
with buses, balanced against the industry's burden of submitting the 
data and the agency's burden of reviewing the data. The risk to motor 
vehicle safety presented by just one bus crash warrants the collection 
and analysis of comprehensive EWR data from all bus manufacturers.
    The need to eliminate the threshold for buses is illustrated by the 
number of recalls conducted in the last (5) years by bus manufacturers 
that produce fewer than 500 buses annually. Since 2003, there have been 
a total of 352 recalls totaling nearly one (1) million buses, 
regardless of production by the manufacturer. Bus manufacturers that 
produce fewer than 500 buses annually conducted 39 recalls in the same 
period for a total of nearly 8,000 buses. On average, 1,600 buses are 
recalled annually by manufacturers that produce fewer than 500 buses 
annually. Because

[[Page 74109]]

each bus transports a sizeable number of passengers, the impact of 
1,600 buses could potentially affect ten of thousands of passengers per 
year. Without comprehensive early warning reports from bus 
manufacturers that produce fewer than 500 buses annually, ODI does not 
have data to promptly identify possible safety defects in buses 
produced by these low production bus manufacturers even though those 
vehicles transport large numbers of passengers annually. Some of the 
ODI's traditional sources of information are lacking in the area of 
buses. For example, vehicle owner complaints, which are a vital source 
of information on light vehicles, are a rarity in the bus area. Given 
the magnitude of the potential harm that could result in just one bus 
crash, we believe eliminating the threshold for buses would allow ODI 
to identify potential problems that may have escaped its consideration 
since the inception of EWR reporting.
    We estimate that there are seventeen (17) additional bus 
manufacturers that would be required to report comprehensive EWR data 
to NHTSA under this proposal. We estimate that the costs for each 
additional bus manufacturer would include a one-time start-up cost of 
approximately $3,500 and an annual reporting cost of approximately 
$13,000. Considering the safety consequences associated with a crash 
involving a vehicle transporting large numbers of individuals and the 
likelihood that NHTSA may receive early warning information even from 
these small manufacturers that may help prevent such crashes, this 
burden on bus manufacturers does not appear to be unduly burdensome. As 
discussed further in section VII.B, below, eleven (11) of these bus 
manufacturers are considered small businesses according to criteria 
used for analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. For the reasons explained in that section, we do not 
believe that this burden will be a significant economic impact on these 
bus manufacturers.
    Based upon the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 579.22 to 
eliminate the current reporting threshold for bus manufacturers that 
produce 500 or more buses annually. We are also proposing that for 
those manufacturers that produce both buses and medium-heavy vehicles, 
the reporting threshold will be separate. Thus, a manufacturer who 
produces both buses and medium heavy vehicles does not have to also 
submit quarterly EWR reports for its medium-heavy vehicles until it 
produces 500 or more medium-heavy vehicles annually.
    We seek comment on our proposal to require universal reporting by 
bus manufacturers.

F. Medium-Heavy Vehicles and Motorcycles

    The EWR regulation requires medium-heavy vehicle manufactures and 
motorcycle manufacturers that produce 500 or more units annually to 
submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22, 23. For these 
medium-heavy vehicles (other than buses) and motorcycle manufacturers, 
we have decided to keep threshold level for reporting at 500 or more 
units annually. We discuss our reasons for leaving the threshold level 
for reporting unchanged below.
1. Medium-Heavy Vehicles
    The EWR regulation requires medium-heavy vehicle and bus 
manufacturers that produce 500 or more units annually to submit 
quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.22. The types of vehicles 
that report under this category include emergency vehicles, 
recreational vehicles, trucks and tractors.\6\ In a January 2006 
letter, the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) requested that the 
agency raise the EWR reporting threshold for medium-heavy vehicles from 
500 or more to 5,000 or more vehicles annually. In response to TMA's 
request, we considered raising the threshold for medium-heavy vehicle 
manufacturers from 500 or more units annually to various annual 
production levels, such as 1,000, 2,500, and 5,000 units annually. 
However, we have decided to leave the current threshold for these 
manufacturers unchanged based upon a combination of factors, such as, 
the proportion of manufacturers that would no longer have to report, 
the proportion of vehicles that would no longer be subject to reporting 
and the effect that the reduction of EWR data would have on ODI's 
ability to determine whether to open investigations and identify 
possible safety-related defects. We discuss these reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For medium-heavy vehicle and bus category, vehicle type 
means: Truck, tractor, transit bus, school bus, coach, recreational 
vehicle, emergency vehicle or other. While buses are included within 
this category, they have been addressed previously in section E of 
this notice and are not included in the following discussion. 49 CFR 
579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 65 emergency vehicle, recreational vehicle, truck, 
and tractor manufacturers now submit quarterly EWR reports to NHTSA. 
For the third quarter of 2007, these manufacturers submitted 
approximately 95 property damage claims, 395,000 warranty claims, 
16,000 consumer complaints and 19,000 field reports on 6 million 
vehicles. These vehicle manufacturers report data on approximately 
400,000 potential products-components (the number of distinct models 
reported by these manufacturers multiplied by the number of components 
in EWR). In addition to the large amount of aggregate data submitted 
for the third quarter of 2007, these manufacturers reported 
approximately 40 death and injury incidents and provided two thousand 
(2,000) copies of non-dealer field reports.
    If we were to raise the threshold for reporting quarterly reports 
from 500 or more to 1,000, 2,500, 5,000 or more medium-heavy vehicles 
annually, a significant number of medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers 
would no longer be required to provide quarterly early warning reports. 
At a threshold level of 1,000 or more vehicles annually, 50 percent of 
emergency vehicle, 26 percent of recreational vehicle, and 34 percent 
of truck manufacturers would not be required to submit comprehensive 
quarterly EWR reports. At a threshold level of 2,500, 63 percent of 
emergency vehicle, 47