Early Warning Reporting Regulations, 47740-47758 [E9-22365]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47740-47758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22365]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 579

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


Early Warning Reporting Regulations

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 47741]]

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Tina 
Morgan, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA (phone: 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

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Summary of the Final Rule

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

[[Page 47742]]

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

III. Background

A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule

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

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

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

B. Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports

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

[[Page 47743]]

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

C. Summary of the Proposed Rule

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

D. Overview of Public Comments to the Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 47744]]

E. Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule

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

IV. Discussion

A. Statutory Background of Early Warning and Notification Requirements

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

B. Matters Considered in Setting Thresholds for Early Warning Reporting

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

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

[[Page 47745]]

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

C. Light Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 47746]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 47747]]

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

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

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

D. Trailers

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 47748]]

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

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

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

E. Buses

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

[[Page 47749]]

reducing the threshold for reporting by bus manufacturers to permit 
identification of potential defects is appropriate.
    Consideration of co