Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor Vehicle and Equipment Recall Regulations |
|---|
|
Nancy L. Lewis
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
July 28, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43670-43679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579
[Docket No. NHTSA--2012-0068; Notice 6]
RIN 2127-AK72
Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor
Vehicle and Equipment Recall Regulations
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; responses to petitions for reconsideration;
technical corrections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This responds to three (3) petitions for reconsideration to
NHTSA's August 20, 2013 final rule adopting amendments to certain
provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) rule and regulations
governing motor vehicle and equipment safety recalls. NHTSA received
three (3) petitions for reconsideration that contained requests to
alter or withdraw several adopted amendments. In addition, this
document makes minor technical corrections to ensure all recall
communications are received through NHTSA's online recalls portal and
that
[[Page 43671]]
all owner notification letters are sent to owners at the time the
remedy is available.
DATES: The effective date for the amendment to 49 CFR 573.15, which
requires larger vehicle manufacturers to supply Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) information electronically on their Web sites and transmit
those VINs to NHTSA's servers is August 20, 2014. The effective date
for the amendments to 49 CFR 573.9, which requires all manufacturers to
manage their safety recalls through a new online recalls portal, is
also August 20, 2014.
The effective date of the adopted amendments to the EWR regulation
in 49 CFR 579.21 and 579.22 is January 1, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues concerning safety
recall provisions, contact Jennifer Timian, Chief, Recall Management
Division, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-0209, email jennifer.timian@dot.gov.
For non-legal issues concerning early warning provisions, contact Leo
Yon, Safety Defects Engineer, Early Warning Reporting Division, NHTSA,
telephone 202-366-7028, email leo.yon@dot.gov. For legal issues,
contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone
202-366-1834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Amendments Made to the Early Warning Rule and Foreign Defect
Reporting
1. Vehicle Type and Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
2. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency
Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
B. Amendments Made to Safety Recalls Reporting, Administration,
and Execution
II. Petitions for Reconsideration Summary and Agency Response
A. Petitions Regarding the Early Warning Rule
1. Petitions for Reconsideration of the Effective Date for EWR
Reporting
2. Petition for Reconsideration To Use the Attribution ``UN''
for Reporting Vehicle Type and Fuel/Propulsion Type Is Unknown
B. Petitions Regarding Public Availability of Motor Vehicles
Recall Information
1. Recall Completion Search Criteria
2. Requirement To Report the Part 573 Date
3. Requirement To Report the Defect or Noncompliance Description
and Statement of Risk
4. Requirement To Report the Date of Available Recall
Information
5. Request for Modification of Effective Date for the
Manufacturer VIN Look-up Tool and Interface With NHTSA
6. Failures of Manufacturers To Provide VIN Look-up Services
7. Timing of NHTSA's Workshops
C. Petitions Related to Amendments to Part 573 and Part 577
1. Requirement for Recall Notification Envelope Label
2. Requirement To Utilize NHTSA's Online Recalls Portal
3. Requirement To Notify Owners within 60 Days
III. Technical Corrections
A. Technical Correction for Submitting Recall Communications
B. Technical Correction for Quarterly Reporting
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
A. Amendments to the Early Warning Rule and Foreign Defect Reporting
On August 20, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule amending certain
provisions of the EWR regulations at 49 CFR Part 579 Subpart C
``Reporting of Early Warning Information.'' 78 FR 51382. In summary,
the new provisions:
Require light vehicle manufacturers to specify the vehicle
type and the fuel and/or propulsion system type in their quarterly EWR
reports.
Add new component categories for reporting on light
vehicles: Electronic stability control, forward collision avoidance,
lane departure prevention, and backover prevention, foundation brakes,
and automatic brake controls.
Add one new component category for buses, emergency
vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers: Electronic stability
control/roll stability control.
Require motor vehicle manufacturers to report their annual
substantially similar vehicle list (SSVL) via the Internet.
The final rule stated that these new provisions will be effective
August 20, 2014.
1. Vehicle Type and Fuel and/or Propulsion System Type
The EWR regulation requires light vehicle manufacturers producing
5,000 or more vehicles annually to submit production information
including the make, the model, the model year, the type, the platform
and the number of vehicles produced. 49 CFR 579.21(a). Manufacturers
must provide the production as a cumulative total for the model year,
unless production of the product has ceased. Id. While light vehicle
manufacturers are required to provide the type of vehicle with their
production, they are not required to provide the type of vehicle when
they submit death and injury data pursuant to 49 CFR 579.21(b) or with
aggregate data under 49 CFR 579.21(c). The final rule amended Sec.
579.21(b) and (c) to require light vehicle manufacturers to provide the
type of vehicle when they submit their death and injury data and
aggregate data under those sections and amended the light vehicle
reporting templates for the EWR death and injury and aggregate reports
to reflect adding vehicle type.
In addition, the final rule amended the EWR regulation to add a
requirement that light vehicle manufacturers identify the specific fuel
or propulsion system used in their vehicles. 78 FR 51382, 51424-55. The
new fuel and/or propulsion system types required to be reported under
the final rule are: Compressed natural gas (CNG); compression ignition
fuel (CIF); electric battery power (EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid
electric vehicle (HEV); hydrogen combustion power (HCP); plug-in hybrid
(PHV); spark ignition fuel (SIF); and other (OTH).
2. New Component Categories for Light Vehicles, Buses, Emergency
Vehicles, and Medium-Heavy Vehicles
The EWR regulation requires light and medium-heavy vehicle
manufacturers to report the required information by specific component
categories. 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2), (c), (d) and 579.22(b), (c), (d). The
final rule amended the EWR regulation to add component categories for
Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Roll Stability Control (RSC),
Forward Collision Avoidance (FCA), Lane Departure Prevention (LDP), and
Backover Prevention technologies. NHTSA added component codes for ESC,
FCA, LDP and Backover Prevention to the EWR reporting for light
vehicles and ESC/RSC for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium and
heavy vehicles. 78 FR 51382, 51424-55. The agency also amended the EWR
rule to add definitions for these components. 78 FR 51382, 51423-24.
The final rule also divided the current ``service brake system''
category for light vehicles into two new categories: ``foundation
braking systems and ``automatic brake controls'' and provided
definitions for those new categories. Id.
B. Amendments to Safety Recalls Reporting, Administration, and
Execution
The August 20, 2013 final rule implemented a number of measures in
our effort to improve the information the agency receives from
recalling manufacturers concerning the products they are recalling and
the plans for remedying those products, in addition to our distribution
of that information to the affected public.
We added certain items of information in a manufacturer's Part 573
Information Report. These additional
[[Page 43672]]
items include: An identification and description of the risk associated
with the safety defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS, and, as to motor
vehicle equipment recalls, the brand name, model name, and model
number, of the equipment recalled. 78 FR 51382, 51421.
Pursuant to Section 31301(a) of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141), the final
rule added a requirement that motor vehicle manufacturers that
manufacture 25,000 or more light vehicles annually, or 5,000 or more
motorcycles annually provide a VIN-based safety recalls search
mechanism available to the public on the Internet. Id. The final rule
required a conspicuous link to the manufacturer's safety recalls search
mechanism on the main page of the manufacturer's United States' Web
page. Specifically, the safety recalls search function must: (1) Be
available to the public on the Internet; (2) be searchable by vehicle
make and model and VIN; (3) be in a format that preserves consumer
privacy; and (4) includes information about each recall that has not
been completed for each vehicle. It must also meet the requirements of
new section 49 CFR 573.15.
In addition to certain light vehicle manufacturers hosting a safety
recalls search function on their Web sites (or through redirects from
those Web sites to a third party's Web site), the agency will offer a
similar function to the public through its Web site, www.safercar.gov.
In order for NHTSA to offer the public a safety recalls search function
specific to VINs, manufacturers must allow secure electronic transfer
of manufacturer recall data, for one VIN at a time, to NHTSA's public
web server(s). As part of the final rule, NHTSA required the secure
electronic transfer of the recall information and data required to be
made publicly available by this section through a specific Application
Programming Interface (API). See 78 FR 51382, 51422.
The final rule requires manufacturers to submit, through a secure,
agency-owned and managed web-based interface or portal,
www.safercar.gov, required Part 573 Information Reports and other
recall-related reports, information, and associated documents. 78 FR
51382, 51421. In addition, manufacturers must supply new or missing
Part 573.6 (b) Report Information within five working days of when the
accuracy of the information has been confirmed. Id.
The final rule also amended certain provisions related to the
notification letter manufacturers must send to owners and purchasers,
under 49 CFR part 577, following the determination of the existence of
a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS. Pursuant to
these amendments, the owner notification letters: (1) Must be sent
within 60 days of the manufacturer's safety defect or noncompliance
notification to the agency; (2) must include the phrase ``IMPORTANT
SAFETY RECALL'' in all capital letters and in an enlarged font at the
top of those letters; and (3) include the statements ``This notice
applies to your vehicle (including the specific VIN)'' and then
followed by an opening statement: ``This notice is sent to you in
accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.''
The final rule also required a specific label on the outside of the
envelope forwarded to the owner or purchaser. See 78 FR 51422. The
agency identified the label and provided a link to where the label was
available for manufacturer use only.
Lastly, the final rule required that manufacturers notify the
agency in the event they file for bankruptcy. Id. We required this so
we can better preserve our ability to consider and take those measures
necessary to protect options for ensuring recalling manufacturers
continue to honor obligations to provide free remedies to owners of
unsafe vehicle and equipment products.
For further information and a thorough discussion of these
amendments, the reader is referred to the final rule, 78 FR 51382, and
the prior notice of proposed rulemaking 77 FR 55606, September 10,
2012.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration Summary and Agency Response
We received petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) \1\, the Association of Global
Automakers (Global) \2\, and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS). We
address the requests for reconsideration pertaining to the EWR rule
first. Thereafter, we address the reconsideration requests related to
amendments to the safety recall provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Members are: BMW group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor
Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-
Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo
Cars.
\2\ Members are: Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu,
Kia, Maserati, McLaren, Nissan, Peugeot, Subaru, Suzuki, and Toyota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Petitions Regarding the Early Warning Rule
The Alliance and Global filed petitions for reconsideration of two
amendments made to the EWR.
1. Petitions for Reconsideration of the Effective Date for EWR
Reporting
Both petitioners seek clarification for the effective date of the
new EWR requirements. The EWR rule requires manufacturers to submit EWR
reports for each calendar quarter of the year and requires, in general,
that manufacturers submit their reports within 60 days of the end of
the quarter. 49 CFR 579.28(b). The final rule provided for an effective
date of August 20, 2014, which is within the middle of the third
calendar quarter. The Alliance and Global commented that having an
effective date in the middle of the third quarter creates confusion for
manufacturers regarding the appropriate report to submit at the end of
the third quarter, i.e., to use the pre-final rule templates and
component codes or the amended templates and component codes. In
subsequent conversations with the Alliance, it pointed out that its
members would need several months of lead time to implement and test
the new EWR templates to ensure that their reporting systems would
capture the new component categories.
The agency agrees that an effective date of August 20, 2014,
creates confusion and does not provide clear instruction as to which
template or component codes apply for third quarter reporting. We also
agree that manufacturers need sufficient time to ensure that their
amended EWR systems are capturing and reporting the information
properly. The agency did not intend to begin using the new templates
and component codes to report EWR data in the middle of the third
quarter. Moreover, we do not want to create a situation where
manufacturers have not completed their testing and implementation of
their updated EWR reporting systems. Accordingly, we will amend the
effective date to January 1, 2015, to clarify that manufacturers should
use the new templates and component codes and minimize any undue burden
to implement the amendments in a timely manner. Accordingly, these
reports will be due no later than 60 days after the last day of the
first quarter of 2015.
2. Petition for Reconsideration To Use the Attribution ``UN'' for
Reporting Vehicle Type and Fuel/Propulsion Type Is Unknown
The Alliance also petitioned the agency to amend the regulatory
text in 579.21(b)(2) and (c) to permit manufacturers to specify that
the vehicle type or specific fuel or propulsion system associated with
a
[[Page 43673]]
specific claim or consumer complaint is unknown. The Alliance notes
that while the preamble discussed the use of ``UN'' for unknown vehicle
type the final rule did not add regulatory language addressing the use
of the `UN' (sic) code in Sec. 579.21. The Alliance requests NHTSA
amend the text of Sec. 579.21(b)(2) and (c) to specify the use of `UN'
when the vehicle type and/or fuel/propulsion type is unknown.
As noted in the preambles to the final rule and the NPRM, the
agency contemplated using the designation ``UN'' for vehicle type when
the VIN of the vehicle is unavailable to determine the vehicle's type.
See 78 FR 51388 and 77 FR 55606, 55612, respectively. We recognize that
there may be instances where a manufacturer receives a notice or claim
of a death or injury, or receives a consumer complaint that meets
minimum specificity \3\ to trigger reporting under EWR, but the VIN is
not made available to the manufacturer. The make, model and model year
are, therefore, available, but the manufacturer may not know whether
the vehicle is two wheel drive or four wheel drive model to determine
the appropriate type code. No commenter objected to the use of ``UN''
by manufacturers when the VIN is unavailable. In addition, in the
preamble to the final rule, the agency responded to comments about how
to report fuel and propulsion systems that are unknown by reporting
``unknown.'' See 78 FR 51389. Although in both these instances the
agency discussed in the preamble how to report incidents when vehicle
type and fuel/propulsion systems are unknown, we omitted to make the
necessary amendments to the regulatory text. Accordingly, we will amend
the regulatory text to be consistent with our previously stated intent.
For consistency with the attributes permitted under the rule for
reporting vehicle type, we will use the two-letter attribute ``UN'' for
unknown vehicle type. For consistency with the attributes allowed for
fuel and/or propulsion type in the August 20, 2013 final rule, we will
use the three-letter attribute ``UNK'' when the fuel and/or propulsion
type is not known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Minimal specificity for a vehicle means the make, model, and
model year. 49 CFR 579.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Petitions Regarding Public Availability of Motor Vehicles Recall
Information
The Alliance, Global and CAS submitted petitions for
reconsideration related to 49 CFR 573.15, Public Availability of Motor
Vehicles Recall Information.
1. Recall Completion Search Criteria
The Alliance commented that the newly added recall information
look-up requirements contained in Sec. 573.15(b)(3) require
manufacturers to offer recall search functionality by vehicle ``make
and model,'' in addition to requiring the VIN. The Alliance noted that
recall results applicable to a particular vehicle cannot be obtained by
using only the vehicle's make and model information. Further, the
Alliance stated that ``there is no way for a manufacturer to know
whether a recall has been completed on a particular vehicle in the
absence of the VIN.'' The Alliance requested that NHTSA verify that
manufacturers must only offer recall results based on a specific VIN.
We confirm that the manufacturers subject to the requirements of
Sec. 573.15 need only to provide search utility based on a VIN. We
concur that a search function based on only vehicle make and model is
not typically sufficient to identify whether a recall applies to a
particular vehicle within a make and model, since most recalls only
address a portion of any particular make, model, and model year
vehicle. In other words, it is rarely the case that a safety recall
covers each and every vehicle manufactured within a particular make,
model, and model year, and so any search function based on these
minimal criteria is not capable of identifying whether a specific
vehicle has an incomplete safety recall. The inability to identify a
safety recall on a specific vehicle would not meet the intent behind
MAP-21's requirement to provide recall information that has not been
completed for each vehicle.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 31301(a) requires that motor vehicle safety recall
information--(1) be available to the public on the Internet; (2) be
searchable by vehicle make and model and vehicle identification
number; (3) be in a format that preserves consumer privacy; and (4)
includes information about each recall that has not been completed
for each vehicle. Public Law 112-114; 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A VIN sequence, however, identifies not only the make, model, and
model year of the vehicle, but a host of additional information
specific to a vehicle that manufacturers use to keep a record of what
technology, among other things, that the vehicle contains. In the event
of a safety recall, manufacturers use this information to pinpoint the
specific vehicles affected and to then notify the affected owners based
on vehicle registration data. The make, model, and model year elements
are incorporated within the VIN sequence, such that a search using
those elements is redundant to the VIN level search required by the
statute. MAP-21's requirement that uncompleted safety recall
information be made publicly available online and searchable by vehicle
make and model and VIN is met through the submission of a VIN.
Accordingly, in the agency's view, incomplete recall information that
is made publicly available and searchable by means of a VIN meets the
statutory intent of MAP-21 and the regulatory requirements of Sec.
573.15.
2. Requirement To Report the Part 573 Date
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to remove the requirement for
manufacturers to provide the Part 573 report date with recall results
in their VIN look-up tools. See 49 CFR 573.15(b)(8). The Alliance
contends this requirement was never proposed in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and the date is of minimal value to consumers. Also,
the Alliance claims these dates are not typically found within a
manufacturer's recall database. The Alliance requests that this
requirement be deleted from Subsection (b)(8) of Sec. 573.15.
We disagree that the Part 573 date is of minimal value to
consumers. We believe the Part 573 date provides an important
contextual reference to vehicle owners and prospective purchasers. This
particular date is important as it marks the beginning of the safety
recall process. NHTSA chose this particular date as it would inform an
owner as to how long their vehicle has been subject to an important
safety recall. We think it is reasonable that when advising consumers
of an uncompleted safety recall that they also be made aware of how
long the recall campaign has been open. It may provide consumers with
added incentive to take the appropriate steps to have the vehicle
remedied. While this data may or may not be located in a manufacturer's
recall database, we understand it will require minimal effort to add
these dates to a database, where needed.
Also, NHTSA is willing to assist any manufacturer with a list of
Part 573 report dates applicable to their past safety recalls, should a
manufacturer not already have these dates recorded electronically. Part
573 report dates, as well as other pertinent recall information, are
located in an electronic database file found on NHTSA's safercar.gov
Web site. This information is, therefore, accessible and a manufacturer
may use it to supplement its own data files if incomplete.
The agency's original proposal contemplated providing recall
information to a consumer to determine if his or her vehicle is subject
to a recall and whether a recall has been launched.
[[Page 43674]]
A subset of this information is the date the manufacturer submitted its
notice to NHTSA. 77 FR 55619. We also stated in the preamble that any
alternative manufacturer hosted Web site (as an alternative to NHTSA
hosting a recall look-up tool) would need to post the same information
as on NHTSA's Web site. 77 FR 55622. The preamble also noted that after
reviewing comments the agency reserved the flexibility to develop and
adopt the alternative approach to a NHTSA hosted recall look-up tool
based upon logical outgrowths of the proposal and comments received. In
our view, for the reasons stated above, this requirement is a logical
outgrowth of our alternative proposal to require manufacturers to host
VIN look-up tools on their own Web sites, subject to certain
performance based criteria. Accordingly, we decline to accept the
request to remove this requirement.
3. Requirement To Report the Defect or Noncompliance Description and
Statement of Risk
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to change the regulatory text of 49
CFR 573.15(b)(8) regarding a description of the safety defect or
noncompliance, and the safety risk, in a manufacturer's VIN look-up
tool. Specifically, the Alliance requested that the phrase
``manufacturer's information report'' be modified to read
``manufacturer's information report or owner notification letter.'' The
group explained that the language used in a manufacturer's Part 573
report is often technical in nature, as opposed to the more concise and
plain language used in owner notification letters.
The Alliance also petitioned that the same modification be made to
the description of the safety risk that is also required by 49 CFR
573.15(b)(8). Currently, paragraph (b)(8) requires manufacturers to
provide a description of the risk to safety ``in the terms required by
parts 573 and 577.'' A suggested change from the Alliance would have
paragraph (b)(8) read, ``manufacturer's information report or owner
notification letter.''
Section 573.15(b)(8) requires manufacturers to provide ``a brief
description of the safety defect or noncompliance identified in the
manufacturer's information report filed pursuant to this Part,'' and to
``describe the risk to safety consistent with the manufacturer's
description given in the terms required by parts 573 and 577.'' 49 CFR
573.15(b)(8). By using the language ``brief description,'' the agency
intended to ensure that safety defect and noncompliance descriptions
incorporated into each manufacturer's online search tool would be
succinct and clear to the public. We agree, however, that it is common
for Part 573 reports to contain more technical detail and use
engineering and industry or trade terminology that may not be used or
understood outside of the automotive industry.
Accordingly, we will grant the Alliance's petition and amend the
relevant text of Part 573.15(b)(8) to read, ``provide a brief
description of the safety defect or noncompliance, including the risk
to safety, identified in the manufacturer's information report or owner
notification letter filed pursuant to this part.''
4. Requirement To Report the Date of Available Recall Information
The Alliance requested clarification regarding the information
required by 49 CFR 573.15(b)(10). Currently, Sec. 573.15(b)(10)
requires a manufacturer's recall look-up tool to ``[s]tate the earliest
date for which recall completion information is available, either on
the search page or on the results page, and provide information for all
owner notification campaigns after that date.'' By way of context and
background, the preceding paragraph, (b)(9), requires each manufacturer
to provide online search capability of at least 15 years' worth of
recall completion data. See 49 CFR 573.15(b)(9). The purpose of
paragraph (b)(10) is to inform online users of how far back the
manufacturer's recall look-up tool reaches. For example, a manufacturer
may choose to comply with the minimum time period specified in
paragraph (b)(9) that provides for an online search capability for
recalls dating back fifteen (15) years. In that case, under paragraph
(b)(10), the manufacturer would inform the customer that the recall
search tool provides recall data for the last 15 years and provide all
incomplete safety recalls from that point forward for the specific
vehicle. On the other hand, if a manufacturer's recall look-up tool
reaches back 50 years, it would specify as much.
Regardless of whether a particular manufacturer chooses to offer 15
years or 50 years' worth of search capability, or somewhere in between,
paragraph (b)(10) requires the manufacturer to inform users either on
the search page where the VIN is entered or on the results page (or on
both) of how far back its search engine will search. This is so a user
can quickly and easily understand any time limitations with respect to
the results they receive. For example, by informing a user of how far
back the manufacturer's search engine will go, users of that
manufacturer's VIN search tool will be informed that safety recalls of
an older vintage (15 years or more, manufacturer-dependent) will not be
detected by the search engine. They will have the information that will
tell them not to rely on the search to produce a trustworthy response
as to their vehicle, particularly if the vehicle is older or a vintage
product. And, of course, a manufacturer could also advise to contact it
or a local dealer for more complete information.
5. Request for Modification of Effective Date for the Manufacturer
Recall Look-up Tool and Interface With NHTSA
Pursuant to the final rule, certain large volume light vehicle and
motorcycle manufacturers have until August 20, 2014, to provide
publicly accessible vehicle safety recall completion information on
their Web sites (or through redirects from those Web sites to a third
party's Web site). They also have until August 20, 2014, to ensure,
through adherence with technical specifications NHTSA sets, the secure
electronic transfer of that recall completion information to NHTSA for
its use in upgrading its current safety recalls search function housed
on www.safercar.gov to allow for VIN-based searching. The Alliance and
Global Automakers petitioned NHTSA to change the effective date of
these requirements from August 20, 2014, to one year from the date the
NHTSA establishes and shares with covered manufacturers the technical
specification for the NHTSA-manufacturer safety recall completion
information interface.
In support of the petition for extension, the Alliance said that
``some/many'' manufacturers do not have a web-based API that provides
all the information that NHTSA would require. It said the interface
will need to be designed and built, but cannot be designed and built
until the requirements are available to the manufacturers. According to
the Alliance, these interfaces could take up to nine (9) months to
build and then three (3) months of testing might be required, and said
this is a comparable period of time for testing that was performed for
NHTSA's Artemis system.
Global echoed a similar sentiment in their petition. That group
said that some manufacturers, particularly the smaller ones, are likely
to rely on third-party vendors to provide the VIN look-up tool
required, and that they would need to develop the tool from the
``ground up,'' rather than making minor modifications to a current
system. Ground up
[[Page 43675]]
development will require significant time and money and, according to
Global' s understanding, the third-party vendors that may be retained
are not able to provide estimates of costs and time to those
manufacturers without the technical specification from NHTSA.
We have considered the Alliance's and Global's arguments, but do
not believe a change in the effective date is necessary. First, as to
the manufacturers' safety recall completion look-up tools to be placed
on their respective Web sites (or links to a tool on a third party
site), and that do not concern an exchange of information between NHTSA
and the manufacturer, all performance requirements were set forth in
the final rule. Manufacturers have time to build out their systems to
meet the recall look-up tool's requirements. Neither the Alliance nor
Global argues that the requirements are so vague or unlimited that
their member companies are unable to comply or start building or
modifying the tools. Moreover, neither presents any details as to why
it would take manufacturers with existing recall look-up tools longer
than the year provided by the agency. Also, by August 20, 2014, every
manufacturer will have had up to one year that the Alliance said its
members would need to comply.
Turning to the requirements concerning the exchange of recall
completion information with NHTSA, it is true that the agency did not
publish the technical specification enumerating the specific, technical
directions for a manufacturer to support and send completion
information to our Web site at the time of the final rule. As we stated
in the final rule, the agency would publish technical specifications
after we published the final rule. Those specifications were published
in December 2013. As noted above, however, we did enumerate each item
of information a manufacturer would need to produce--whether on its Web
site or to NHTSA. We also supplied more than sufficient technical
detail as to how the transfer of information would need to occur so
that a manufacturer (or its vendor) could reasonably initiate design
and production of a system, even if from the ground up.
In our view, the enumerated information in the final rule about the
exchange of information between NHTSA and manufacturers laid the
foundation for which manufacturers could begin working towards meeting
the August 20, 2014 deadline. While technical information was not
provided in the final rule, certain information was not critical for a
manufacturer to begin the process and work towards the deadline. Much
of this information is information that we could not produce publicly.
For example, we did not provide the location of the uniform resource
identifier (URI) where an exchange of information with a manufacturer
would occur. Nor did we define the identification and key combinations
that NHTSA and a particular manufacturer would use to authenticate
systems and ensure secure transfer of information. We do not believe
manufacturers require these sorts of administrative details that relate
strictly to the mechanics of transfer and not to the substance of the
information itself--which was defined in the August 2013 Final Rule--an
entire year in advance. Manufacturers were given and/or allowed access
to the technical specification in December 2013, giving them almost
nine months lead time. Also, a public workshop was held in January 2014
to discuss the technical requirements of the recalls information
exchange. This workshop allowed manufacturers' staff to better
understand the technical requirements, ask questions, and exchange
ideas with NHTSA staff. In response to the workshop, NHTSA published
updated technical specifications in March 2014. NHTSA continues to work
closely with manufacturers to ensure systems are ready by the August
2014 deadline. Indeed, a number of the Alliance's members are actively
engaged in testing exchanges with NHTSA at this time. Accordingly, we
are denying the petitions to extend the effective date for the VIN
look-up tool.
6. Failures of Manufacturers To Provide VIN Look-up Services
Global Automakers commented that a manufacturer's electronic
reporting system or public Web site can experience temporary
malfunctions, as with any electronic system. It noted that these
disruptions could occur for any number of reasons, despite all
reasonable efforts by a manufacturer to prevent a disruption.
Accordingly, Global requested that we state affirmatively that such
temporary system malfunctions that prevent compliance with our
reporting or public information requirements will not be subject to
civil penalties, provided that manufacturers take reasonable steps to
minimize the occurrence of such events and respond expeditiously to any
system malfunctions.
We understand the concern, but do not believe it is necessary to
make an affirmative statement that temporary system malfunctions will
not be subject civil penalties. As in the past, we intend to
responsibly exercise our enforcement discretion concerning instances of
manufacturer failures to comply and to conduct investigations, as
necessary, to determine the facts of a particular situation. We plan to
use the facts and circumstances of each matter to guide a decision
whether to pursue an enforcement action, including one for penalties.
7. Timing of NHTSA's Workshops
In the final rule, we committed to hosting workshops for both the
recalls portal and the VIN-based safety recalls search tool to be
housed on our Web site www.safercar.gov. For the latter, we indicated
we anticipated hosting a workshop in early 2014. The Alliance requested
we schedule the workshops as soon as possible and before the end of
2013.
We considered this request and scheduled the workshop to discuss
the technical specification for the VIN-based safety recalls search
tool for January 2014. Notice of this meeting was provided in a Federal
Register Notice published December 26, 2013 (78 FR 248).
As to the recalls portal, we remain committed to hosting workshops
and to providing advance notice of them. On May 27, 2014, we published
a notice in the Federal Register announcing multiple training workshops
to be held July 28, 2014, through August 8, 2014. Participants must
register in advance and registration instructions are provided in the
notice. 79 FR 30234. These workshops will offer robust, instructor-led
remote training, as opposed to in-person training that may require
considerable travel and expense for many. The recalls portal workshops
will be more training-based, as opposed to design-based, and so there
is not an immediate need for the industry workshops or their
scheduling.
C. Petitions Related to Amendments to Part 573 and Part 577
1. Requirement for Recall Notification Envelope Label
As part of the final rule, we amended the text of 49 CFR 577.5(a)
to require that the envelope in which a manufacturer notifies owners
and purchasers of a safety recall have imprinted on the front a label,
one by three inches in size. 78 FR 51422. We specified in the
regulatory text that the label would be available at a specific address
and secure location on our Web site. NHTSA stated that in the event of
a change or an update to the label, NHTSA would provide notice through
the online Recall Portal. 78 FR 51409. The Alliance disagrees with this
approach and contends that NHTSA
[[Page 43676]]
must specify all the content and formatting for the label within the
regulatory text of part 577 itself, or as an Appendix or Figure
incorporated within part 577. In its view, changes or updates to the
label would not be possible without providing notice and comment on the
revisions, as well as modifying the regulatory text of part 577
accordingly.
After further consideration, we agree with the Alliance regarding
an opportunity for notice and comment should we decide to amend the
label. Accordingly, we are today incorporating an image of the required
label, together with the specific color, text, and formatting
requirements, into the regulatory text by adding new Sec. 577.14.
While the label will remain available to manufacturers for at least the
near term online through the safercar.gov Web site, we are today
removing the regulatory text specifying its online location. A specific
online location is no longer necessary in view of the change to
regulatory text and may become a housekeeping burden as online content
changes and progresses over time.
2. Requirement To Utilize NHTSA's Online Recalls Portal
In NHTSA's NPRM, we proposed the creation of a new, online recalls
portal where a manufacturer would submit its information required under
part 573. 77 FR 55638. Included with our proposal were examples of part
573 report form templates through which manufacturers would provide the
required notification to NHTSA and supply information that is required
pursuant to federal regulation, either in the first notification or in
a subsequent report.
Our proposal was well received, with most commenters supporting the
submission of part 573 information through an online portal. The
Alliance agreed that electronic submission of part 573 information
using standardized forms would better help NHTSA administer safety
recalls. In addition, manufacturers submitted a number of constructive
suggestions regarding the content and formatting of the form templates.
We also received comments requesting that the agency make clear the
difference between fields that were required to be completed, and those
that were not required. In the final rule, we implemented a number of
suggestions, including clearly indicating the required fields. We
agreed that we would use an asterisk to denote mandatory information
within a part 573 form, and attached an Appendix demonstrating this
change. 78 FR 51404.
While not raised in its comments to the NPRM, the Alliance now
petitions that NHTSA must include the templates themselves within the
text of part 573 (or as an Appendix or Figure incorporated therein). It
contends that the templates could be changed without opportunity for
notice and comment. The Alliance argues that the agency is obligated to
specify the mandatory elements of the template in the regulatory text
(or as Appendix or Figure) and cannot change those mandatory elements
without amending the regulatory text after notice and comment. It
asserts this is a requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), as well as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
require OMB approval of any form, printed or online.
We note that this argument was not raised during the notice and
comment period for this rulemaking. The idea of an online notification
to NHTSA and reporting of information required pursuant to part 573
through the use of a template was detailed at length in the NPRM,
together with proposed forms for several vehicle types and items of
motor vehicle equipment. We received multiple industry comments
supporting this approach and commenters provided constructive advice on
how to improve the concept. As the Alliance acknowledges in its
petition, it concurred with this approach.
In general, we agree that an agency must specify the mandatory
elements of information to be provided to the agency (here, information
required to be submitted in a Defect or Noncompliance Report pursuant
to part 573), and must do so in regulatory text. We also agree that
pursuant to the APA any changes to those mandatory elements must be
made through notice and comment rulemaking. We also understand our PRA
obligations require that we must submit for OMB's review and approval
an analysis of the burdens associated with any new reporting
requirements or changes to existing requirements.
We do not agree, however, that the agency is obligated to
incorporate the templates into the regulatory text of part 573 when the
information that is noted as ``required'' in the templates is merely
reflective of information required to be submitted by the regulatory
text of part 573. With respect to the templates, they are the
mechanisms for a manufacturer to deliver the information required under
part 573 to NHTSA, and nothing more. The delivery mechanism is no
different than a letter or even an email from a manufacturer submitting
a part 573 report. The information that is required to be reported does
not change based on the vehicle for delivery. We note that we marked
elements of the reporting templates as ``required'' in response to
comments requesting that the agency differentiate between the elements
that are required under Part 573 from those that are voluntary. We also
note that some commenters requested that the agency provide greater
flexibility with the templates to include voluntary information.
If we were to adopt the Alliance's view and make the template part
of the regulatory text, we would arguably need to conduct a rulemaking
and seek notice and comment on every adjustment to the form, no matter
its relationship to content or format in order to bring to current the
visual depiction. We do not agree that the APA is so restrictive.
With respect to OMB approval, the PRA is concerned about the burden
placed upon the third party by collections of information. The
definition of ``collection of information'' includes any form or format
including electronic form. In the NPRM and final rule, NHTSA adequately
addressed the information collection for the required templates. 77 FR
55635. OMB has issued a valid control number of 2127-0004.
Accordingly, we are denying the Alliance's petition. We understand,
however, the Alliance's concern that dramatic changes to the templates
may require manufacturers to change processes and incur costs. Outside
of ministerial changes to the templates, NHTSA will not make wholesale
changes to the templates without manufacturer input.
3. Requirement To Notify Owners Within 60 Days
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) petitioned the agency to modify
the regulatory text concerning new changes to owner notifications. In
the final rule, NHTSA amended 49 CFR 577.7 to require manufacturers to
notify affected owners within sixty (60) days of notifying NHTSA of the
defect or noncompliance. By amending this text, the phrase ``within a
reasonable time'' was removed. The CAS notes that the omission of this
phrase means that manufacturers might not be timely with their second
owner notification in cases where only an interim notification was sent
to owners within sixty (60) days. The Center believes this omission
could ``encourage foot dragging in the issuance of second 577 notices
announcing availability of the remedy.''
We agree with the petitioner that the phrase ``within a reasonable
time'' should be included in Sec. 577.7, as it was included
originally. We will amend Sec. 577.7 to add this language so that
notifications announcing the availability
[[Page 43677]]
of the recall remedy are sent in a timely fashion.
III. Technical Corrections
Many aspects of the August 20, 2013 final rule amended the safety
recall requirements found in parts 573 and 577. In making those
amendments, we omitted amending related procedural provisions. The
following two technical corrections will be made to ensure continuity
between the existing regulation text and the newly introduced
requirements.
A. Technical Correction for Submitting Recall Communications
As discussed above, the final rule requires that manufacturers
submit all recall reports through a new, online Web site. See 49 CFR
573.9. However, we omitted to amend the language in Sec. 573.6(c)(10)
(submission of copies of notices bulletins and other communications
related to the defect or noncompliance) to be consistent with the
requirement to submit through the recall portal under Sec. 573.9. In
order to clarify that all documents required by Sec. 573.6 must be
submitted through the new recalls portal, we are amending Sec.
573.6(c)(10) to ensure that all recall documentation be submitted
through NHTSA's new recalls portal.
B. Technical Correction for Quarterly Reporting
The August 2013 final rule established a 60-day timeframe,
beginning from the date NHTSA is notified, for manufacturers to notify
owners of a safety recall on their vehicle, even in cases where the
remedy is not yet available. In finalizing this notification
requirement, however, we overlooked an adjustment to the quarterly
completion reporting requirement to make clear that recall completion
reports were expected to start in the quarter that the manufacturer
starts its remedy campaign, and not when it first notifies owners about
the defect or noncompliance. As noted in the NPRM and our final rule,
these two actions often do not occur simultaneously. In many cases, a
manufacturer may experience parts delays or other circumstances which
delay a prompt launch of its free remedy campaign.
Currently, Sec. 573.7 requires manufacturers to start quarterly
reporting on recalls ``beginning with the quarter in which the campaign
was initiated (i.e., the date of initial mailing of the defect or
noncompliance notification to owners) or corrective action has been
completed on all defective or noncomplying vehicles or items of
replacement equipment involved in the campaign, whichever occurs
first.'' With the new requirement to notify consumers within 60 days of
the filing of a part 573 report, even if a remedy is unavailable, the
language in Sec. 573.7 is inconsistent with the new notification
requirement. Because the purpose of completion reporting is, of course,
to monitor and assess the success of a manufacturer's recall campaign,
it's logical to start that reporting and assessment only once the
manufacturer has launched its remedy campaign.
Accordingly, we will correct Sec. 573.7 to clarify that quarterly
reporting begins with the quarter in which the remedy program is first
made available to owners.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
This rule responding to petitions for reconsideration makes several
minor changes to the regulatory text of 49 CFR parts 573, 577 and 579,
and does not increase the regulatory burden of manufacturers. The
agency has discussed the relevant requirements of the Vehicle Safety
Act, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork
Reduction Act, Executive Order 13045, Executive Order 13609, and the
National Environmental Policy Act in the August 2013 final rule cited
above. Those discussions are not affected by these changes.
Privacy Act
Please note that any one is able to search the electronic form of
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, 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), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Regulatory Text
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA requests that 49 CFR parts
573, 577, and 579 be amended as set forth below:
PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-30121, 30166, Pub. L.
112-141, 126 Stat. 405; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
49 CFR 501.8.
0
2. Revise Sec. 573.6(c)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 573.6 Defect and noncompliance information reports.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(10) A representative copy of all notices, bulletins, and other
communications that relate directly to the defect or noncompliance and
are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer or
purchaser. These copies shall be submitted to NHTSA's Recall Management
Division (NVS-215) (RMD), not later than 5 days after they are
initially sent to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or purchasers.
Submission shall be made pursuant to Sec. 573.9 of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 573.7(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 573.7 Quarterly reports.
(a) Each manufacturer who is conducting a defect or noncompliance
notification campaign to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or
owners shall submit to NHTSA a report in accordance with paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of this section. Unless otherwise directed by the
NHTSA, the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section shall be included in the quarterly report, with respect to
each notification campaign, for each of six consecutive quarters
beginning with the quarter in which the campaign was initiated (i.e.,
the date the manufacturer notifies its purchasers of the availability
of a remedy) or corrective action has been completed on all defective
or noncomplying vehicles or items of replacement equipment involved in
the campaign, whichever occurs first.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 573.15(b)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 573.15 Public availability of motor vehicle recall information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Where the search results in identification of a recall that has
not been completed, state the recall campaign number NHTSA assigned to
the matter; state the date the defect or
[[Page 43678]]
noncompliance was reported pursuant to Part 573; provide a brief
description of the safety defect or noncompliance, including the risk
to safety, identified in the manufacturer's information report or owner
notification letter filed pursuant to this part; and describe the
remedy program;
* * * * *
PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
0
5. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follow:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
0
6. Revise Sec. 577.5(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 577.5 Notification pursuant to a manufacturer's decision.
(a) When a manufacturer of motor vehicles or replacement equipment
determines that any motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment
produced by the manufacturer contains a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety, or fails to conform to an applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standard, or the manufacturer files a defect or
noncompliance information report under 49 CFR part 573, the
manufacturer shall provide notification in accordance with Sec.
577.7(a), unless the manufacturer is exempted by the Administrator
(pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such
notification. The notification shall contain the information specified
in this section. The information required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section shall be presented in the form and order specified. The
information required by paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section may
be presented in any order. Except as authorized by the Administrator,
the manufacturer shall submit a copy of its proposed owner notification
letter, including any provisions or attachments related to
reimbursement, to NHTSA's Recall Management Division (NVS-215) no fewer
than five (5) Federal Government business days before it intends to
begin mailing it to owners. The manufacturer shall mark the outside of
each envelope in which it sends an owner notification letter with a
notation that includes the phrase ``SAFETY RECALL NOTICE,'' all in
capital letters and in a type that is larger than that used in the
address section, and is also distinguishable from the other type in a
manner other than size. It shall also imprint on the outside of this
envelope a label in accordance with Sec. 577.14. Except where the
format of the envelope has been previously approved by NHTSA's Recall
Management Division (NVS-215), each manufacturer must submit the
envelope format it intends to use to that division at least five (5)
Federal Government business days before mailing the notification to
owners. Submission of envelopes and proposed owner notification letters
shall be made by the means identified in 49 CFR 573.9. Notification
sent to an owner whose address is in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
shall be written in both English and Spanish.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 577.7(a)(1) by revising the second sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 577.7 Time and manner of notification.
(a) * * *
(1) * * * In the event that the remedy for the defect or
noncompliance is not available at the time of notification, the
manufacturer shall issue a second notification within a reasonable time
and in accordance with the requirements of this part once that remedy
is available. * * *
* * * * *
0
8. Add Sec. 577.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 577.14 Labeling for owner notification letter envelope.
(a) Purpose and scope--The purpose of this section is to supply
vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including manufacturers of tires
and child safety seats, with the label required to be shown on the
envelopes of safety recall notification letters mailed to owners
pursuant to Sec. 577.5. This label shall not be used for any purpose
other than compliance with Sec. 577.5 by any entity outside of the
Department of Transportation.
(b) Required label information and format. (1) The label depicted
in this section must be printed on the front of the safety recall owner
notification envelope. The content, format, and sequence of this label
are depicted in Figure 1 of this section. A Spanish version of this
label, for owners located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the
Canal Zone, can be found in Figure 2 of this section.
(2) The text ``IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL INFORMATION'' must be
printed in capital letters, have a minimum font size of 10 point, and
be printed in white text on a red background. Also, this text must be
centered horizontally and located near the top of the label. The text
``Issued in Accordance With Federal Law'' must have a minimum font size
of 10 point, be printed in black text on a white background, and be
located directly beneath the preceding text, also centered horizontally
within the label.
(3) The logo of the U.S. Department of Transportation must be
located at the bottom, left-hand corner of the label. The logo of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must be located at the
bottom, right-hand corner of the label. Each logo should be printed in
black color with a white background.
(c) Required label size--The label depicted in this paragraph must
be 1 inch in height and 3 inches in length.
[[Page 43679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JY14.000
PART 579--REPORTING OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT
POTENTIAL DEFECTS
0
9. The authority citation for part 579 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
0
10. Amend Sec. 579.4(c) by adding, in alphabetical order, the
following definition of ``Fuel and/or propulsion system type'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 579.4 Terminology.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Fuel and/or propulsion system type means the variety of fuel and/or
propulsion systems used in a motor vehicle, as follows: compressed
natural gas (CNG); compression ignition fuel (CIF); electric battery
power (EBP); fuel-cell power (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle (HEV);
hydrogen combustion power (HCP); plug-in hybrid (PHV); spark ignition
fuel (SIF); other (OTH), and unknown (UNK).
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 579.21 by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding a third sentence to paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Adding a sixth sentence to paragraph (c)
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 579.21 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 5,000 or more
light vehicles annually.
* * * * *
(a) Production information. Information that states the
manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the make, the
model, the model year, the type, the platform, the fuel and/or
propulsion system type coded as follows: CNG (compressed natural gas),
CIF (compression ignition fuel), EBP (electric battery power), FCP
(fuel-cell power), HEV (hybrid electric vehicle), HCP (hydrogen
combustion power), PHV (plug-in hybrid), SIF (spark ignition fuel), OTH
(Other), and UNK (unknown) and the number of vehicles produced. * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * * If a vehicle manufacturer is unaware of the vehicle type
at the time it receives the incident, the manufacturer shall use the
abbreviation ``UN'' in its report to indicate that the vehicle type is
unknown. * * *
(c) * * * For each report, the manufacturer shall separately state
the vehicle type and fuel and/or propulsion system type if the
manufacturer stated more than one vehicle type or fuel and/or
propulsion system type for a particular make, model, model year in
paragraph (a) of this section. If a vehicle manufacturer is unaware of
the vehicle type at the time it receives the property damage claim,
consumer complaint, warranty claim or field report, the manufacturer
shall use the abbreviation ``UN'' in its report to indicate that the
vehicle type is unknown.
* * * * *
Nancy L. Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-17497 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P