6532 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(d) To the extent that a manufacturer

within a control relationship was

outside that relationship for a previous

model year and not within any other

control relationship, shortfalls incurred

by the manufacturer for such model year

may be offset by credits earned by the

group of manufacturers within the

control relationship for subsequent

model years in which the manufacturer

is within the relationship, subject to the

agreement of the other manufacturers,

the availability of the credits, and the

general three-year restriction on

carrying credits backward.

(e) If a manufacturer which is

controlled by another manufacturer is

sold or otherwise spun off so that it is

no longer within that control

relationship and is not within any other

control relationship, it may use credits

that were earned by the group of

manufacturers within the control

relationship while the manufacturer was

within that relationship, subject to the

agreement of the other manufacturers,

the availability of the credits and the

general restriction on carrying credits

forward.

(f) If a manufacturer which is

controlled by another manufacturer is

sold or otherwise spun off so that it is

no longer within that control

relationship but is within another

control relationship, it may use credits

that were earned by the group of

manufacturers within the former control

relationship while the manufacturer was

within that relationship, subject to the

agreement of the other manufacturers,

the availability of the credits, and the

general restriction on carrying credits

forward, and subject to a demonstration

by the manufacturer, and approved by

the Administrator, that the credits to be

used are no more than the manufacturer

could use if it were not within another

control relationship.

(g) If a manufacturer which is

controlled by another manufacturer is

sold or otherwise spun off so that it is

no longer within that control

relationship and is not within any other

control relationship, credits earned by

that manufacturer may be used by the

manufacturer or group of manufacturers

previously within the control

relationship for model years in which

the manufacturer was within that

relationship, subject to the agreement of

the previously controlled manufacturer,

the availability of the credits and the

general restriction on carrying credits

backward.

(h) If a manufacturer which is

controlled by another manufacturer is

sold or otherwise spun off so that it is

no longer within that control

relationship but is within another

control relationship, credits earned by

manufacturers within the latter control

relationship for model years in which

the manufacturer is within that

relationship may be used by the

manufacturer or group of manufacturers

within the former control relationship

for model years in which the

manufacturer was within that

relationship, subject to the agreement of

the group of manufacturers within the

latter control relationship, the

availability of the credits, and the

general restriction on carrying credits

backward, and subject to a

demonstration by the manufacturer, and

approved by the Administrator, that the

credits to be used are no more than the

manufacturer would have earned if it

were not within another control

relationship.

§ 534.6 Situations not directly addressed

by this regulation.

To the extent that this regulation does

not directly address an issue concerning

the rights and responsibilities of

manufacturers in the context of a

changes in corporate relationships, the

agency will make determinations based

on interpretation of the statute and the

principles reflected in the regulation.

Issued on: January 10, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–1524 Filed 1–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 554, 573, and 576

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–8677; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AI25

Standards Enforcement and Defect

Investigation; Defect and

Noncompliance Reports; Record

Retention

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPRM).

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on ways that the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) may implement the ‘‘early

warning reporting requirements’’ of the

Transportation Recall Enhancement,

Accountability, and Documentation

(TREAD) Act. The TREAD Act directs

NHTSA to publish a rule requiring

vehicle and equipment manufacturers to

report claims data and other

information, whether originating in the

United States or in a foreign country,

that may assist in identifying defects

related to motor vehicle safety in

vehicles or equipment in the United

States. The Act further authorizes

NHTSA to require the reporting of other

information. These manufacturers must

also report to us all incidents, of which

they receive notice, involving fatalities

or serious injuries which are alleged or

proven to have been caused by a

possible defect in their products,

whether in the United States or abroad,

when the possible defective vehicle or

equipment is identical or substantially

similar to a vehicle or equipment

offered for sale in the United States. We

intend to issue a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) later in 2001 to

amend our procedural regulations on

standards enforcement and defect

investigation, reporting requirements,

and recordkeeping, on the basis of

comments we receive in response to this

ANPRM.

DATES: Comment closing date:

Comments must be received on or

before March 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments on this notice

should refer to the docket and notice

number set forth above and be

submitted to Docket Management, Room

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. The docket

room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

non-legal issues, contact George Person,

Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA

(phone: 202–366–5210). For legal issues,

contact Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief

Counsel, NHTSA (phone: 202–366–

5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background:

A. The Firestone ATX and Wilderness tire

recall.

B. Information and data in the possession

of NHTSA before May 2, 2000, related to

possible safety problems with Firestone

ATX and Wilderness tires.

C. Information and data in the possession

of Firestone and Ford indicating that the

tires might contain a safety-related

defect.

D. Reporting requirements before the

TREAD Act.

E. The TREAD Act (Pub. L. 106–414).

II. General Definitions.

III. Who is Covered by the New Reporting

Requirements?

IV. What Information Should Be Reported?

V. When Should Information be Reported?

VI. How Should Information be Reported?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6533

1Notification is also required if a manufacturer

‘‘decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment

does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle

safety standard issued under this chapter.’’ Section

30118(c)(2). These standards are the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) appearing at 49

CFR part 571.

VII. How NHTSA Might Handle and Utilize

Early Warning Information Reported to

it.

VIII. Periodic review.

IX. Rulemaking analyses.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Firestone ATX and Wilderness

Tire Recall

On August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/

Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) announced

that it would recall certain ATX, ATXII,

and Wilderness AT tires that contained

a defect related to sudden tread

separation (collectively referred to in

this notice as ‘‘the recalled tires’’). On

August 16, Firestone filed its formal

defect report with NHTSA pursuant to

49 CFR part 573. The recall covered

P235/75R15 size tires including all ATX

and ATX II tires of that size, and all

Wilderness AT tires of that size

produced at Firestone’s Decatur,

Illinois, manufacturing plant. At the

time, Firestone estimated that

approximately 6.5 million of the 14.4

million tires covered by the recall were

still in use throughout the United States.

B. Information and Data in the

Possession of NHTSA Before May 2,

2000, Related to Possible Safety

Problems With Firestone ATX and

Wilderness Tires

Between March 1990 and February

2000, NHTSA’s consumer complaint

database received approximately 46

complaints about Firestone ATX and

Wilderness tires (we received additional

limited information in July 1998 from

State Farm Insurance Company related

to insurance claims allegedly involving

Firestone ATX tires). Beginning in

February 2000, we began to receive

additional complaints following a

broadcast by a Houston, Texas,

television station of a program on the

failure of these tires on Ford Explorer

vehicles. In March 2000, NHTSA’s

Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)

opened an initial evaluation (IE) to

consider whether to open a defect

investigation. On May 2, 2000, we

opened such an investigation

(Investigation No. PE00–020) after

having received an additional 44 reports

since February 2000. Most of these

complaints involved tires installed on

Ford Explorer vehicles. None of the

complaints covered tires in use outside

the United States. The investigation

covered over 47 million ATX and

Wilderness tires, of various sizes, made

in several plants.

C. Information and Data in the

Possession of Firestone and Ford

Indicating That the Tires Might Contain

a Safety-Related Defect

At about the time of the Texas

television program in February 2000,

Firestone had recorded 193 personal

injury claims, 2,288 property damage

claims, and was a defendant in 66 law

suits related to the tires covered by the

investigation. It had also received a

number of requests for financial

adjustments from consumers who were

unhappy with their tires. NHTSA was

not aware of these data until after we

opened our investigation because

Firestone was not required to provide

this information to us in the absence of

a specific request, and it did not

voluntarily provide it.

Ford Motor Company (Ford) had

previously taken several actions

overseas to address safety problems

related to Wilderness tires on Ford

Explorer vehicles. In August 1999, Ford

offered to replace the P255/70R16

Firestone Wilderness AT tires installed

as original equipment on certain Ford

Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer

models in use in the Persian Gulf

region. Ford stated that this action was

taken because the tires ‘‘may experience

interior tire degradation and tread

separation, due to unique Gulf Coast

usage patterns and environmental

conditions, resulting in a loss of vehicle

control.’’ Late in February 2000, Ford

made a similar offer for almost identical

reasons to owners in Malaysia and

Thailand of ‘‘certain 1997 Explorers

equipped with P235/75R15 Firestone

‘‘All Terrain’’ Brand Tires.’’ A third

offer was made, for the same reasons as

the other two offers, in May 2000, to

owners in Venezuela covering ‘‘certain

1996 through 1999 Explorers equipped

with P235/75R15 or P255/70R16

Firestone ‘All Terrain’ brand tires.’’

Firestone was aware of each of these

actions. In none of the three instances

did Ford or Firestone notify NHTSA of

these actions. Although 49 U.S.C.

30166(f) as implemented by 49 CFR

573.8 would have required Ford to

notify us of these actions if they had

occurred in the United States, there was

no requirement for it to do so because

they did not occur in the United States.

D. Federal Safety-Related Defect

Reporting Requirements Before the

TREAD Act

Title 49, United States Code, Chapter

301—Motor Vehicle Safety, is the basic

motor vehicle safety statute

administered by NHTSA (the ‘‘Vehicle

Safety Act’’). Under 49 U.S.C.

30118(c)(1), a manufacturer of a motor

vehicle or replacement equipment must

notify NHTSA if the manufacturer

‘‘learns the vehicle or equipment

contains a defect and decides in good

faith that the defect relates to motor

vehicle safety.’’ 1 As noted in United

States v. General Motors Corp. (X-Cars),

‘‘a manufacturer incurs its duties to

notify [NHTSA] and remedy [the defect]

whether it actually determined, or it

should have determined, that its

vehicles are defective and the defect is

safety-related.’’ 656 F. 2d 1555, 1559 n.

5 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The X-Cars court held

that a ‘‘manufacturer cannot evade its

statutory obligations that exist when it

determines that a defect is safety-related

‘by the expedient of declining * * * to

reach its own conclusion as to the

relationship between a defect in its

vehicles and * * * safety.’ ’’ Id. (quoting

United States v. General Motors Corp.,

574 F. Supp. 1047, 1050 (D. D.C. 1983).

Prior to the TREAD Act, a

manufacturer’s automatic (i.e., not in

response to NHTSA’s information

requests under which information is

required as part of an investigation)

reporting obligations under Section

30166 were established by 49 U.S.C.

30166(f), providing copies of

communications about defects and

noncompliance, as implemented by 49

CFR 573.8, Notices, bulletins, and other

communications. Section 30166(f)

provides that:

A manufacturer shall give [NHTSA] a true

or representative copy of each

communication to the manufacturer’s dealers

or to owners or purchasers of a motor vehicle

or replacement equipment produced by the

manufacturer about a defect or

noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety

standard * * * in a vehicle or equipment

that is sold or serviced.

NHTSA issued a regulation

thereunder, 49 CFR 573.8, which

specifies that:

Each manufacturer shall furnish to the

NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and

other communications (including those

transmitted by computer, telefax or other

electronic means, and including warranty

and policy extension communiques and

product improvement bulletins), other than

those required to be submitted by Sec.

573.5(c)(9), sent to more than one

manufacturer, distributor, dealer, lessor,

lessee, or purchaser, regarding any defect in

its vehicles or items of equipment (including

any failure or malfunction beyond normal

deterioration in use, or any failure of

performance, or flaw or unintended deviation

6534 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

2The notices, bulletins, and other

communications required to be submitted by Sec.

573.5(c)(9), which Sec. 573.8 excludes, are those

that relate directly to a noncompliance or a safetyrelated defect that a manufacturer has determined

and reported to NHTSA.

from design specifications), whether or not

such defect is safety related. Copies shall be

in readable form and shall be submitted

monthly, not more than five (5) working days

after the end of each month.2

However, the statute and regulation

did not require manufacturers to

provide these documents with respect to

actions occurring outside the United

States.

E. The TREAD Act (Pub. L. 106–414)

In October 2000, H.R. 5164, the

‘‘Transportation Recall Enhancement,

Accountability, and Documentation

(TREAD) Act’’ was passed by the

Congress. It was signed by the President

on November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106–414.

In H. R. Rep. 106–954, accompanying

H.R. 5164, Congress noted that NHTSA

did not have adequate, timely data

about Firestone ATX and Wilderness

tires:

First, it is clear that the data available to

NHTSA regarding the problems with the

Firestone tires was insufficient. While

testimony showed that the agency had

received some complaints about the tires,

both from consumers and from an automobile

insurance company, they did not receive data

about Ford’s foreign recall actions or the

internal company data on claims related to

this data. * * * The Committee believes that

the provisions of this legislation are an initial

step toward correcting these problems. (p. 7)

The TREAD Act seeks to ensure that

NHTSA receives appropriate data in a

timely fashion, including that related to

foreign recall actions and internal

company data on claims and lawsuits

related to defects. It does so in part by

amending 49 U.S.C. 30166 to add a new

subsection (m), Early warning reporting

requirements. Subsection (m) requires

NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking

proceeding not later than 120 days after

enactment of the TREAD Act to

establish early warning reporting

requirements for manufacturers of motor

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA is further required to issue a

final rule not later than June 30, 2002.

Sections 30166(m)(3), (4), and (5)

specify requirements for, respectively,

the reporting elements of early warning,

the handling and utilization of reporting

elements, and periodic review and

update of the final rule.

The crux of the early warning

provisions is Section 30166(m)(3),

which states:

(3) Reporting elements.

(A) Warranty and claims data. As part of

the final rule * * * the Secretary [of

Transportation] shall require manufacturers

of motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment to report, periodically or upon

request by the Secretary, information which

is received by the manufacturer derived from

foreign and domestic sources to the extent

that such information may assist in the

identification of defects related to motor

vehicle safety in motor vehicles and motor

vehicle equipment in the United States and

which concerns—

(i) data on claims submitted to the

manufacturer for serious injuries (including

death) and aggregate statistical data on

property damage from alleged defects in a

motor vehicle or in motor vehicle equipment;

or

(ii) customer satisfaction campaigns,

consumer advisories, recalls, or other activity

involving the repair or replacement of motor

vehicles or items of motor vehicle

equipment.

(B) Other data. As part of the final rule

* * *, the Secretary may, to the extent that

such information may assist in the

identification of defects related to motor

vehicle safety in motor vehicles and motor

vehicle equipment in the United States,

require manufacturers of motor vehicles or

motor vehicle equipment to report,

periodically or upon request of the Secretary,

such information as the Secretary may

request.

(C) Reporting of possible defects. The

manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor

vehicle equipment shall report to the

Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary

establishes by regulation, all incidents of

which the manufacturer receives actual

notice which involve fatalities or serious

injuries which are alleged or proven to have

been caused by a possible defect in such

manufacturer’s motor vehicle or motor

vehicle equipment in the United States, or in

a foreign country when the possible defect is

in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment that is identical or substantially

similar to a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment offered for sale in the United

States.

The TREAD Act thus provides for

NHTSA to require manufacturers of

motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment to provide information

related to claims for deaths and serious

injuries, property damage,

communications to customers, other

data, and incidents causing fatalities or

serious injuries in which a

manufacturer’s product was involved,

caused by possible defects in vehicles or

equipment in the United States, or in

identical or substantially similar

vehicles or equipment in a foreign

country. Information provided under

the TREAD Act will enhance the ability

of NHTSA to be aware of potential

safety-related defects as soon as

possible. We also anticipate that the Act

will provide an incentive to

manufacturers to develop or refine

internal systems more attuned to

analysis of data and early detection of

possible safety problems.

The purpose of this ANPRM is to

initiate rulemaking on the early warning

reporting requirements and to discuss

the ways in which NHTSA may best use

this information and data to fulfill the

statutory goal.

II. General Definitions

Section 30166(m) uses some terms

that were originally defined in the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act of 1966 (now codified as 49

U.S.C. Chapter 301—Motor Vehicle

Safety) and introduces some new ones

that have not been defined. The terms

defined in Section 30102 that are

relevant to this document are:

1. Motor vehicle—‘‘a vehicle driven or

drawn by mechanical power and

manufactured primarily for use on the public

streets, roads, and highways. * * *’’

2. Motor vehicle equipment—‘‘(A) any

system, part or component of a motor vehicle

as originally manufactured; (B) any similar

part or component manufactured or sold for

replacement or improvement of a system,

part, or component, or as an accessory or

addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device

or an article or apparel * * * that is not a

system, part, or component of a motor

vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered,

offered, or intended to be used only to

safeguard motor vehicles and highway users

against risk of accident, injury, or death.’’

3. Manufacturer—‘‘a person—(A)

manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles

or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing

motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment

for resale.’’

4. Defect—‘‘includes any defect in

performance, construction, a component, or

material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment.’’

5. Motor vehicle safety—‘‘the performance

of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment in a way that protects the public

against unreasonable risk of accidents

occurring because of the design,

construction, or performance of a motor

vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of

death or injury in an accident, and includes

nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.’’

The terms in Section 30166(m) that

have not been defined by Section 30102

and for which we seek to develop a

meaning are ‘‘claim,’’ ‘‘property

damage,’’ ‘‘aggregate statistical data,’’

‘‘serious injury,’’ and ‘‘substantially

similar.’’ We shall discuss these terms

and their possible meanings in the

course of this document.

III. Who Is Covered by the New

Reporting Requirements?

The TREAD Act requires information

to be submitted by manufacturers of

motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment. We have identified the

following categories of manufacturers of

vehicles and equipment.

Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Domestic vehicle manufacturers are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6535

manufacturers who produce motor

vehicles in the United States, including

corporations that are subsidiaries of, or

otherwise controlled by, manufacturers

incorporated in a country outside the

United States. Foreign vehicle

manufacturers are manufacturers who

produce motor vehicles outside the

United States, which are shipped to and

sold in the United States. A foreign

motor vehicle manufacturer may have a

subsidiary in the United States.

Multinational motor vehicle

manufacturers are manufacturers that

produce vehicles in one or more foreign

countries and the United States. Some

have acquired other motor vehicle

manufacturers who continue to produce

vehicles under their original

nameplates. Some, like Ford Motor

Company (which has acquired Volvo,

Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and

Pivco of Norway), are headquartered in

the U.S. Others, like DaimlerChrysler

AG (which acquired Chrysler

Corporation), are headquartered in a

foreign country.

Many motor vehicles manufactured in

the United States are produced by

companies which are U.S. subsidiaries

of corporations organized under the

laws of other countries (e.g., the Dodge

Stratus, manufactured by

DaimlerChrysler Corporation which is a

subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler AG). A

number of other vehicles are produced

outside the United States by foreign

manufacturers and imported by their

U.S. subsidiaries (e.g., Mercedes-Benz

passenger cars produced in Germany by

DaimlerChrysler AG and imported by

Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.). Where

multinational manufacturers do

business both in the United States and

elsewhere, some vehicles certified for

sale in the United States may have

counterpart models sold outside the

United States (e.g., Mercedes-Benz C

Class, Toyota’s right-hand drive Camry

produced in Kentucky for export to

Japan, and Toyota’s Echo, sold in other

countries as the Yaris). While these

models may not be exactly identical to

the models sold in the United States,

they are similar enough such that in

many or most cases, it is likely that

defects occurring in counterpart models

sold outside the United States will also

exist in their U.S. model counterparts.

Information about such problems in

these foreign vehicles is also subject to

the early warning requirements to be

specified in our regulations. Thus, for

example, if Toyota Motors Ltd. of Japan

(the foreign parent) has information

about a safety problem on the Yaris that

caused a serious injury or that led to a

recall or similar campaign in Japan or

another foreign country, Toyota USA

would be required to report it to us,

since it could be an indication of

possible problems with the Echo, sold

in the United States.

The increasing globalization of the

automotive industry in the past decade

is likely to result, in the coming years,

in various efficiencies and benefits from

common platforms and common parts.

When this occurs, new and more

complex issues may arise about the

relationship of defects in derivative

vehicles, and whether vehicles and

equipment are substantially similar to

each other.

The TREAD Act specifically requires

vehicle and equipment manufacturers to

provide information on safety-related

incidents and activities occurring

outside the United States. Normally, we

would expect this information to be

provided through a designated entity in

the United States (e.g., the importer or

a U.S. manufacturing subsidiary).

However, the information could be

reported directly by the foreign

manufacturer or the foreign portion of a

multinational corporation.

Registered Importers. ‘‘Registered

Importers (RI)’’ import motor vehicles

that were not originally manufactured as

conforming with the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. These are

colloquially known as ‘‘gray market’’

vehicles. RIs bring gray market vehicles

into conformity, certify their

conformity, and sell them. Currently,

99% of the vehicles imported by RIs

have been manufactured for the

Canadian market. All have virtually

identical counterparts in the United

States. Such defects as may exist in

these Canadian gray market vehicles are,

in general, corrected by the

manufacturer of the U.S. counterpart,

which also honors warranty claims on

these vehicles. The sole manufacturer

that does not do so is Honda-Acura.

Because RIs are not factory-authorized

distributors and dealers, it appears

unlikely that they will receive and

possess warranty data and other

information that would be meaningful

under the early warning requirements.

We seek comments on whether RIs

should be included in the early warning

reporting requirements.

Miscellaneous motor vehicle

manufacturers. The scope of

‘‘manufacturer’’ also includes

manufacturers of incomplete vehicles as

defined by 49 CFR part 568, Vehicles

Manufactured in Two or More Stages,

who have contingent defect reporting

responsibilities under 49 CFR 573.3(c).

Because a person who alters a certified

vehicle is required to affix its own

certification under certain conditions, in

the same manner as the vehicle’s

original manufacturer, the early warning

reporting requirements could be viewed

as applicable as well to alterers who

certify.

Motor vehicle equipment

manufacturers. There is a wide range of

equipment manufacturers. We are

considering whether periodic reporting

by some manufacturers of motor vehicle

equipment is necessary to fulfill the

intent of the TREAD Act.

With respect to original equipment

(see 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(A), 49 U.S.C.

30102(b)(1)(C)), there are approximately

14,000 individual items of original

equipment in a contemporary passenger

car. However, many of these items are

not supplied directly to the vehicle

manufacturer, but are incorporated into

components assembled by a person

other than the manufacturer of the part.

There is a growing trend to packaging

individual parts into a single unit, or

module. For example, a steering wheel

assembly may include an air bag, horn

control, turn signal control, wiper

control, ignition switch, cruise control,

lighting controls, as well as associated

wiring. These units are assembled by a

supplier, often with components from

various manufacturers. In many

instances, a defect in a modular

component installed as original

equipment is far more likely to come to

the direct attention of the vehicle

manufacturer than the assembler of the

component, or the manufacturers of the

component’s individual parts.

With respect to ‘‘replacement/

accessory equipment’’ and ‘‘off-vehicle

equipment’’ (see generally 49 U.S.C.

30102(a)(7)(B) and 30102(b)(1)(D)), the

number of items cannot be estimated at

this time. Some are very important from

a safety perspective, such as tires and

child seats, while others have less of a

safety nexus. Although each

manufacturer of each of these items of

motor vehicle equipment is within the

scope of the early warning reporting

requirements, as defined by statute, we

are considering whether it would be

appropriate to have different

requirements applicable to different

types of equipment manufacturers.

Tires are motor vehicle equipment.

With respect to the recall provisions of

the Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121,

tires are replacement equipment rather

than original equipment (49 CFR

579.4(b)(2)). Therefore, tire

manufacturers have the duty to conduct

notification and remedy campaigns and

to address defective or noncompliant

tires, including tires installed on new

vehicles. Tire brand name owners are

also considered manufacturers (49

U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(E)) and have the

6536 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

same defect and noncompliance

reporting requirements as tire

manufacturers under 49 CFR 573.3(d) .

Importers of motor vehicle equipment

for resale are also ‘‘manufacturers of

motor vehicle equipment.’’ A large

number of these may not be U.S.

subsidiaries of the foreign manufacturer

of the product they import (e.g.,

importers of lighting equipment

manufactured in Asia). A defect existing

in the equipment they import could

relate to safety. These importers could

receive warranty or other claims. We see

no reason not to apply the early warning

reporting requirements to these

importers. For example, we tentatively

decided that importers of tires that are

not affiliated with the actual tire

manufacturers should be subject to the

same early warning reporting

requirements as domestic manufacturers

of tires.

In some cases, the importer may be

the most likely reporting entity.

Although importers may lack

engineering expertise, they may be most

able to provide information related to

returned parts, complaints, claims, and

injuries.

Neither the TREAD Act nor its

legislative history evidence a

Congressional intent to exclude any

manufacturer of motor vehicle

equipment (or motor vehicles) from the

early warning reporting requirements.

Nevertheless, we recognize that some

items of motor vehicle equipment

rarely, if ever, develop a safety-related

defect (e.g., exterior and some interior

trim, motorcycle rider vests). We

recognize that, with respect to such

items, only limited reporting may be

required. Even though there may not be

a safety need to require reporting of a

full range of information by such

equipment manufacturers, we

tentatively believe that a manufacturer

of any item of motor vehicle equipment

should be required to report to us any

claim it receives alleging that a death or

serious injury was caused by a defect in

its product.

There is a variety of alternative

approaches that we might adopt with

respect to reporting related to

equipment. On one side, we might

require reporting of limited kinds of

information such as deaths, but not

others, such as property damage. On the

other side, we might require reporting

with regard to only some classes of

equipment items. Possible approaches

are addressed below.

i. Reporting initially limited to

specific equipment items. Given the vast

number of motor vehicle parts, the

questions at present of the types and

quantity of data that are pertinent to the

early warning reporting requirements,

and the data storage and processing

systems that may be required within

NHTSA, it may be more effective to

adopt an incremental approach, and

initially to require reports from

manufacturers of only a relatively small

number of original or replacement

equipment items. On the basis of safetyrelated defects reported in the past five

years, we would include tentatively in

this category tires, child restraint

systems, fuel tanks, air bags and related

components, and axle/suspension/brake

components on heavy trucks and

trailers. We would also include original

and replacement equipment

manufacturers of seat belt assemblies

and air bags and related components

such as sensors. Comments are

requested on whether we initially

should limit our reporting requirements

to a subset of equipment manufacturers,

and, if so, how that subset should be

defined.

ii. Reporting of equipment items

directly covered by the FMVSS. Initially,

or after a period of time in which both

industry and NHTSA have had

experience with the reporting

requirements, these requirements could

include or be extended to require all

manufacturers of original or

replacement equipment that is directly

covered by a Federal motor vehicle

safety standard (FMVSS) to report on

the same basis as vehicle manufacturers

as defined by Section 30102(a)(5)(A).

This would include, for example, all

manufacturers of brake hoses (FMVSS

No. 106), lighting equipment (FMVSS

No. 108), tires (FMVSS No. 109 and

119), brake fluids (FMVSS No. 116),

retreaded tires (FMVSS No. 117), rims

for vehicles other than passenger cars

(FMVSS No. 120), warning devices

(FMVSS No. 125), non-pneumatic

temporary spare tires (FMVSS No. 129),

glazing (FMVSS No. 205), seat belt

assemblies (FMVSS No. 209), child

restraint systems (FMVSS No. 213),

motorcycle helmets (FMVSS No. 218),

rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223),

and compressed natural gas fuel

containers (FMVSS No. 304).

iii. Subsequent extension of reporting

requirements to all manufacturers of

components that a vehicle manufacturer

uses in complying with Federal crashavoidance and some crash-protection

and post-crash standards. The next tier

of equipment manufacturers that might

be required to report on the same basis

as vehicle manufacturers could be

manufacturers of original or

replacement equipment which are parts

of systems covered by the FMVSS ‘‘100’’

series, the ‘‘crash-avoidance’’ standards.

For example, motor vehicles are

required to comply with the braking

performance standards (FMVSS Nos.

105, 121, 122, and 135), but the

individual components of brake systems

(other than brake hoses and brake fluid)

are not covered by the FMVSS. Thus,

we could apply the early warning

requirements to the manufacturer of any

component in a motor vehicle brake

system (e.g., discs, rotors, brake lining),

or any other vehicle system that is

covered by any of the Federal ‘‘crash

avoidance’’ standards (FMVSS Nos.

101–135).

We have had a frequent number of

recalls over the past five years because

of safety problems with seats, seat

backs, and their attachments. Therefore,

we could include all components

required to comply with FMVSS No.

207, Seating Systems. Given the

national concern for child safety, we

could also add manufacturers of

components that a vehicle manufacturer

uses to comply with FMVSS No. 225,

Child Restraint Anchorage Systems.

This approach might also be extended

to include components of fuel systems

used in vehicles required to comply

with FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System

Integrity, and FMVSS No. 303, Fuel

System Integrity of Compressed Natural

Gas Vehicles, because fuel system parts,

hoses, fuel lines, and connectors are

frequently the subject of recall

campaigns. Finally, it is important to

post-crash safety that materials used in

the interior of vehicles fully conform to

FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of

Interior Materials. We could apply the

reporting requirements to manufacturers

who provide interior materials to

vehicle manufacturers, even though the

vehicle manufacturers have the

responsibility to certify compliance

with FMVSS No. 302.

iv. Exclusions. There seems little

safety need to require manufacturers of

accessory equipment or articles of

apparel (other than motorcycle helmets

and jack stands) to report to us unless

there is a death or serious injury

allegedly involving a defect in their

products. However, there may be

accessories such as tire inflation

pressure gauges or battery cables which,

if not properly manufactured, could

present a safety defect issue, and whose

manufacturers should report.

Given the universe of motor vehicle

equipment manufacturers, it may be that

some will be excluded from the

reporting requirements. For instance,

the supplier of a part used in a

subassembly, though a manufacturer of

motor vehicle equipment by definition,

might be excluded if there is a

historically low recall rate on that

subassembly. On the other hand, if the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6537

3We note that the California Air Resource Board

(CARB) has implemented such a system with

respect to air-quality-emissions components on

vehicles sold or registered in California. We are

considering whether a similar system might be

effective in the early warning of safety defects.

manufacturer of a relatively

insignificant part such as a fastener or

bolt becomes aware that it has produced

a defective part, that information ought

to be reported to us, so that we can

decide whether to open a defect

investigation with respect to the

vehicles in which that part has been

used.

Questions to be answered. We seek

answers to the following questions

relating to who should be covered by

the early warning reporting

requirements.

A. Which of the manufacturers listed

above should be covered by the final

rule and why?

B. Are there other entities that should

be covered by the reporting

requirements and why?

C. Should any of the above

manufacturers or other entities be

covered by only some reporting

requirements and not others?

D. With respect to manufacturers’

international feedback mechanisms, to

what extent is information provided in

the English language? Are there delays

in transmitting information such as

narrative field reports due to the need

to translate it into English? If so, what

is the length of delays?

E. What accessories could develop

safety-related defects?

IV. What Information and Data Should

Be Reported?

Because Section 30166(m) authorizes

regulations that will require

manufacturers to report to NHTSA

information and data which relate to

possible defects, the agency anticipates

that these regulations will take the form

of amendments to 49 CFR part 573,

Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

This could result in renumbering some

existing provisions.

The purpose of the early warning

reporting requirements is to provide

information to NHTSA that will assist in

the early detection of possible safetyrelated defects. We believe that the

following information and data are

relevant to this purpose:

A. Relevant Information and Data

Warranty claim data. We believe that

information about warranty claims can

often provide relevant information that

indicates the possible existence of a

safety defect. ‘‘Warranty data’’ appears

in the heading of Section

30166(m)(3)(A) as one type of ‘‘reporting

element.’’ Thus, although it does not

explicitly appear in the text of

subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of that

paragraph, we believe that warranty

information is included within its

ambit. In any event, warranty data

would be included within the scope of

‘‘other data’’ whose reporting we can

require under Section 30166(m)(30(B).

Vehicle manufacturers have complex

systems of warranty coverage, which

involve codes that are revised from time

to time. There are large numbers of

warranty claims. We understand that

vehicle manufacturers review warranty

information for various reasons

including cost control, needed product

improvement, billing of suppliers,

emissions-related reporting, and safety.

We have limited familiarity with

original equipment manufacturer

warranty systems. We do know that

vehicle manufacturers have required

original equipment manufacturers to

provide reimbursement to

manufacturers for warranty costs and for

various campaigns. We also have some

familiarity with warranty systems used

by manufacturers of some types of

replacement equipment, such as child

seats.

The threshold question is what

information about warranty claims may

assist in the identification of defects

related to motor vehicle safety. We are

considering listing in the final rule

systems, parts, and components that are

particularly safety related. We have

reviewed safety-related recalls during

the 1995–2000 period and have

identified the following parts/

components as the most frequent

subjects of recall campaigns: fuel

systems (15% of all campaigns), brakes

(13%), and suspensions (11% ). We

classify recalls related to restraint

systems, seats, instrument panels,

gauges, etc. as ‘‘interior systems;’’ these

have accounted for 14% of the recall

campaigns. Beyond this, there are

miscellaneous other parts/components

each of which comprises less than 10%

of all campaigns but which together

constitute the remaining 47% of recall

campaigns. It seems to us that

information on warranty data relating to

parts/components that have been the

subject of recall campaigns might be

significant early warning indicators of

possible safety-related defects. We

appreciate that over the long run and in

the future the current list may be

underinclusive because it may not

include new technologies. We may

amend the final rule at some future time

to accommodate new technologies

because, historically, defects in newlydeveloped parts have given rise to a

substantial number of safety recalls.

The agency does not want to require

the submission of excessive warranty

claim information. One mechanism may

be to establish cumulative or periodic

thresholds below which warranty

information would not have to be

reported. For example, a manufacturer

might not be required to report warranty

information on a passenger car

component until the warranty claims

rate reached x% of production.3 We

might apply a lower threshold if that

same component were used on a school

bus, i.e., reporting would be required

when warranty claims reached only y%.

Similarly, there may be specific

instances where we would employ

much lower thresholds where critical

safety components are involved, such as

seat belt buckles.

The warranty information that we

would find useful is that relating to

make, model, model year, and the

component or warranty code. The final

rule would require each manufacturer to

report to us a complete list of relevant

warranty codes. However, in order for

the agency to effectively use this

information, it would be helpful for us

to receive it in a standardized manner.

Thus, we are considering whether to

require some standardization of

warranty codings among manufacturers.

Claims and Incidents Involving

Serious Injury or Death: Section

30166(m)(3)(A)(i) requires

manufacturers to provide information

concerning data on claims submitted to

a manufacturer for serious injury or

death, to the extent that such

information may assist in the

identification of safety-related defects.

Section 30166(m)(3)(C) also requires a

manufacturer to report incidents of

which it receives actual notice which

involve deaths or serious injuries which

are alleged or proven to have been

caused by a defect, regardless of

whether there is a ‘‘claim.’’ We believe

that to achieve the goals of the TREAD

Act, ‘‘claim’’ must be construed broadly.

For example, we have tentatively

concluded that it includes subrogation

claims filed by an insurer against a

manufacturer. It also includes lawsuits

against a manufacturer, whether or not

they are preceded by a separate ‘‘claim.’’

Some manufacturers may employ

outside law firms to handle claims or

lawsuits on a routine basis.

Manufacturers would be required to

report all covered claims against them

whether they are being handled by

house counsel or outside counsel.

While we do not have information

related to foreign mechanisms

paralleling domestic claims, we intend

to obtain equivalent information from

foreign sources. It is not necessary that

6538 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the claim relate to a crash; the Vehicle

Safety Act is concerned with nonoperational safety as well.

We realize that claims and allegations

may be presented against a

manufacturer using a wide variety of

terms. We also understand that claims

may allege in various terms personal

injury or death from alleged defects in

various items. Sometimes the defect

may not be clearly alleged. For example,

assume that a person asserts that an air

bag deployed in a low-speed parking lot

fender bender and a vehicle occupant is

seriously injured. Should this be viewed

as including an implicit allegation that

a safety defect contributed to the

occupant’s injury and constitute a

claim?

At the outset, we are considering

requiring that manufacturers only

provide summary information, as

opposed to a copy of the claim itself. We

are considering requiring more

information for a lawsuit than for a

claim that has not become a suit. One

approach would be to require a brief

description of the alleged defect giving

rise to the complaint, including an

identification of the component or

system at issue. Other identifying

information would include: if a vehicle,

the make, model, model year and VIN;

if a child seat, the make, model, model

number and date of manufacture; if

other equipment, the date of

manufacture, serial number, and a

description of the product; and, if a tire,

the brand name, model name, and size,

the DOT identification number, and the

make, model, and VIN of the vehicle on

which it was installed. For lawsuits, we

are considering also requiring the case

name, case number, identification of

court or tribunal where the action is

pending (whether in the United States

or elsewhere).

Claims for deaths. The statute

requires manufacturers to provide data

on claims ‘‘for serious injuries

(including death).’’ Consistent with

principles of common law, this would

include all deaths that occur within one

year of the incident in question.

Claims for serious injuries. The statute

does not define ‘‘serious injury’’ nor is

there any legislative history as to what

Congress meant by this term. Injuries

may be characterized in a variety of

ways in claims. Some could allege

simply that an ‘‘injury’’ has occurred.

Others might allege that the injuries are

‘‘serious’’ or ‘‘substantial’’ with no

further description. Some could specify

a specific injury or injuries from which

one might infer that an injury was

serious.

We believe that it would be valuable

to first identify what we believe is a

serious injury and then deal with how

to assess whether a claim presents a

serious injury. A system of rating the

severity of motor vehicle crash-related

injuries has been developed which aids

in establishing uniform data bases for

crash injury statistics. This system is the

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), which

has been in use in the United States for

approximately 30 years. The first AIS

was published in 1971 under the

auspices of the joint Committee on

Injury Scaling, comprised of

representatives of the American Medical

Association (AMA), American

Association for Automotive Medicine

(AAAM), and the Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE). Since 1976, the AIS

has been accepted and used by crash

researchers in many parts of the world.

It ranks the severity of injuries

numerically from 1 to 7: minor,

moderate, serious, severe, critical,

maximum, injured unknown severity.

The injuries recorded are those that

occur to the head (cranium and brain),

face, neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvic

contents, spine, upper extremity, lower

extremity, external/skin, and burn

injuries and other trauma. Each body

area receives a separate report. One

possible approach would be to define a

‘‘serious injury’’ as one with a level of

AIS 3 or higher, which is consistent

with the AIS scale. The AIS is explained

more clearly in the 2000 NASS Injury

Coding Manual, edited for us by

Veridian Engineering of Buffalo, NY. We

have placed a copy of the Manual in the

docket.

Claims that are presented to

manufacturers often will not have

sufficient information to be classified

using the AIS criteria. Some may allege

only that the complainant was injured,

without stating the nature of the injury

or its severity. In these events, a

manufacturer will not know initially

whether the claim reflects a ‘‘serious

injury.’’ There are a number of potential

ways to address this. One is to require

manufacturers to review claims as they

are received and attempt to determine

whether they involve serious injuries

and, if there is insufficient information,

to require reassessment after additional

information is received (e.g., through

follow-up communications or pre-trial

discovery). Another is to require a

manufacturer to report all claims of

injury. Manufacturers may prefer this as

relieving them of the need to make

subjective determinations, even though

the statute only requires them to submit

data on claims for ‘‘serious’’ injuries.

We note that, notwithstanding this

discussion of ‘‘serious injury’’ for

purposes of the TREAD Act, motor

vehicle safety encompasses all injuries,

not just those which are above a

specified AIS level. Therefore, even if

the final rule limits the submission of

injury-related information to that which

is AIS 3 or above, this is not to be

construed to mean that the agency will

not conduct defect investigations or

seek safety recalls when the AIS level of

the injuries caused by a particular defect

is likely to be only AIS 1 or 2.

Claims: property damages. Section

30166(m)(3)(A)(i) also requires

manufacturers to provide us with

‘‘aggregate statistical data on property

damage.’’ This provision appears to

have been included to address

situations similar to that which

occurred with Firestone tires, when that

company had extensive data on

property damage incidents but did not

share it with NHTSA. When a claim is

submitted to a manufacturer solely for

property damage, the manufacturer

would not have to provide us with a

copy of the claim or full summary

information on each individual claim.

Rather, we tentatively would require

manufacturers to provide such

information in an aggregate form at the

end of each reporting period, clearly

identifying the specific product, item,

and/or components that allegedly cause

the damage, and informing us of the

number of additional property damage

claims that were received since the last

reporting period. This would be

accompanied with a description of the

condition leading to the property

damage claims, using terms as they are

commonly understood (for example, a

manufacturer could not fail to report a

fire to us if it characterized it as a

‘‘thermal event’’ in internal documents,

in any instance where there is ignition

resulting in an alleged flame). As with

warranty claims, we could provide that

such reports would only need to be

submitted if the number of claims about

a particular vehicle, equipment item, or

component was above a specified

threshold. We also could require these

reports to include percentages. For

example, a manufacturer might be

required to report that ‘‘15% of the total

claims in the aggregate alleged property

damage are due to fire.’’

Field Reports. Manufacturers also

receive ‘‘field reports’’ from employees

and dealers indicating the possible

existence of problems. These are often

particularly valuable because they

provide insights into problems by

persons with considerable vehicle

expertise. We expect to require ‘‘field

reports’’ under the ‘‘other data’’

provisions of Section 30166(m)(3)(B).

The threshold substantive question is

what field reports may assist in the

identification of defects related to motor

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6539

4We do not plan to require the submission of

information involving disputes with individual

owners about possible problems with their vehicles.

vehicle safety. The information

management issues include identifying

them and managing narrative field

information.

Consumer complaints. Manufacturers

often receive complaints from

consumers where no injury has

occurred. For purposes of this

rulemaking proceeding, we intend to

construe any communication requesting

restitution for an injury or property

damage as a ‘‘claim,’’ and not as a mere

‘‘consumer complaint.’’ Some consumer

complaints may be related to safety and

might help in an early detection of a

possible safety-related defect. These

may be particularly important after the

expiration of warranties. We would

appreciate comments on how they

should be evaluated to identify those

that are related to safety, and how and

whether such complaints should be

submitted to us under Section

301166(m)(3)(B).

Information on customer satisfaction

campaigns, consumer advisories,

recalls, or other activity involving the

repair or replacement of motor vehicles

or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Section 30166(m)(3)(A)(ii) requires

manufacturers to provide information

which concerns ‘‘customer satisfaction

campaigns, consumer advisories,

recalls, or other activity involving the

repair or replacement of motor vehicles

or items of motor vehicle equipment’’

(In this case, we will use the term

‘‘campaign’’ to cover all these different

types of actions). While the nexus

requirement—‘‘to the extent that such

information may assist in the

identification of defects related to motor

vehicle safety’’— must be met, Section

30166(m)(3)(A)(ii) applies regardless of

whether a manufacturer has decided

that a defect exists, whether or not the

conditions or circumstances in question

relate to motor vehicle safety. The new

section is broader than the current

regulation, 49 CFR 573.8 (based on

Section 30166(f)), which requires a

manufacturer to provide copies of

communications regarding ‘‘any defect’’

including ‘‘any failure or malfunction

beyond normal deterioration in use, or

any flaw or unintended deviation from

design specifications, whether or not

such defect is safety related.’’

In our view, this category of

information includes any

communication to, or made available to,

a dealer, distributor, other

manufacturer, or more than one owner,

whether in writing or by electronic

means, relating to replacement or

modification of a component, or

modification of the way that a vehicle

or equipment item is to be operated.4

However, in addition to the

communication itself, we tentatively

plan to require the submission of

information regarding the facts and

analysis that led to the manufacturer’s

decision to issue the communication.

It should be relatively straightforward

to identify whether a campaign has been

conducted. With respect to the issue of

whether the subject of a ‘‘campaign’’

may assist in the identification of

defects, we do not believe that the

description provided in the

communication itself should be

dispositive. Some communications may

be phrased in a way to avoid any

suggestion of a possible defect or a

safety relationship. Thus, it may be in

the interest of safety to err on the side

of inclusiveness and to require a

manufacturer to provide copies of all

communications with its dealers or

customers, written or electronic, when

certain components or systems are

involved. Of course, we are not

interested in financial or marketing

information provided to dealers or

distributors.

We also note that, in lieu of providing

notices in hard copies to their dealers,

some manufacturers are posting

information about ‘‘campaigns’’ and

other service information on their

internal websites. In order to keep

appraised of these ‘‘notices,’’ we are

considering proposing that

manufacturers provide us periodically

with a list (and possibly copies) of their

electronic postings.

Internal investigations. After receiving

field reports, consumer complaints, or

other data indicating a potential

problem in a vehicle component,

manufacturers often initiate internal

investigations into the issues which may

or may not be concluded with the

reporting to NHTSA that a safety-related

defect has been determined to exist. In

some instances, these investigations

may parallel a related NHTSA

investigation. We are considering

whether to require manufacturers to

provide us with information regarding

such internal investigations pursuant to

Section 30166(m)(3)(B). If we do so, we

will need to identify precisely what sort

of ‘‘investigations’’ are covered, what

information we should require about

these investigations, and when we

would require the information to be

submitted.

Changes to components and service

parts. When a manufacturer decides to

change a part (either as a running

change or as a change to a service part),

it could signal that the original was

underdesigned or overloaded. An

example would be an electrical switch

that is made more robust or the

inclusion of a new relay to reduce the

electrical load to eliminate an

overheating condition that could lead to

a fire. Thus, we are considering

requiring the submission of information

regarding such changes. Manufacturer

communications about changes in

products and service procedures can

also indicate potential defects. We are

considering requiring manufacturers to

provide NHTSA with a dealer password

so that we can access their internal

websites (This access would be limited

so that we could not access financial or

marketing information). However, some

of these changes may bear little

relevance to safety issues. If we require

manufacturers to provide information

regarding design and service parts

changes, we will need to decide

whether information about all such

changes should be provided or only

those relating to specified safety

components of a vehicle, and the

criteria that should be adopted to ensure

that we receive the information mot

likely to provide early warning of

defects.

Remedy failures. We are also

considering whether to require

manufacturers to provide us with

information regarding information

concerning instances in which a vehicle

or child seat has had to be remedied

more than once in the course of a safety

recall campaign.

Fuel leaks, fires, and rollovers. We are

especially concerned with motor vehicle

fuel leaks, fires, and rollovers. We may

require manufacturers to provide

information on fuel leaks, fires, and

rollovers separate from other

information.

B. Vehicles and equipment covered:

substantially similar vehicles and

equipment in foreign countries.

Pursuant to Section 30166(m)(3)(C),

manufacturers must report incidents

involving fatalities or serious injuries

that are alleged or proven to be caused

by a product defect ‘‘in a foreign

country when the possible defect is in

a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment that is identical or

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

or motor vehicle equipment offered for

sale in the United States.’’ (This is in

addition to the duty to report claims and

other information covered by Section

30166(m)(3)(A) that are ‘‘derived from

foreign and domestic sources.’’)

We interpret the word ‘‘identical’’ to

mean ‘‘the same as.’’ As for

‘‘substantially similar,’’ we begin with a

6540 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

5The Administrator must also decide that the

vehicle is capable of being readily altered to comply

with all applicable FMVSS. The authority to decide

extends only to motor vehicles and not to motor

vehicle equipment.

recognition that in recent years there

has been an increasing amount of

commonality among basic platforms,

body structure and engines of motor

vehicles. If a vehicle is a model that is

manufactured in the United States by a

domestic manufacturer and certified as

conforming to the FMVSS, and the

manufacturer produces the same model

for sale outside the United States, we

would regard the exported model as a

‘‘substantially similar’’ motor vehicle for

the life of both models, even if there

were minor changes to the vehicles

shipped abroad (e.g., if Company A

produces a model for export for one

model year longer than a certified

model, that exported model would

nevertheless be ‘‘substantially similar’’

to the certified models of previous

model years). If a motor vehicle is

manufactured outside the United States

and certified for sale in the United

States, and the foreign manufacturer

produces the same model (i.e., same

exterior body shell and family of

engines), for sale in other countries, we

would also consider that to be a

‘‘substantially similar’’ motor vehicle for

the life of both models whether or not

there were minor differences. We

recognize, however, that there may be

issues as to whether differences are

‘‘minor,’’ and we seek comments on that

subject .

The phrase ‘‘substantially similar’’

also appears in Section 30141(a)(1)(A),

added by the Imported Vehicle Safety

Compliance Act of 1988. This section

provides that a RI may import a motor

vehicle not originally manufactured to

comply with the FMVSS if the NHTSA

Administrator decides that the vehicle

is ‘‘substantially similar’’ to a motor

vehicle of the same model year that was

certified for sale in the United States.5

Except for vehicles originally

manufactured for sale in Canada,

virtually all these decisions have been

made pursuant to petitions by RIs. A list

of eligible vehicles is published as an

appendix following 49 CFR part 593,

and periodically during the fiscal year

as additional decisions are made. While

the list contains a number of vehicles

that would be ‘‘substantially similar’’

under both Sections 30141 and the early

warning reporting requirements of

Section 30166(m), it is not exclusive

and does not constitute the entire

universe of ‘‘substantially similar’’

motor vehicles subject to early warning

requirements. ( The part 593 list also

includes some vehicles that are not

‘‘substantially similar’’ to vehicles

certified for sale in the United States,

but that are eligible for importation on

the alternative statutory basis that they

have safety features that comply or are

capable of being altered to comply with

the FMVSS).

There may be instances in which

vehicles may not be identical or

substantially similar but may have

components that are identical to those

used in a vehicle sold in the United

States.

The simpler an item of equipment is,

the more likely it is to be identical or

substantially similar in the United

States and in foreign markets. The

phrase ‘‘substantially similar’’ applied

to motor vehicle equipment raises a

question of magnitude given the generic

nature of many parts. Most tires can be

viewed as substantially similar in a

literal sense. One windshield wiper may

be viewed as ‘‘substantially similar’’ to

another. For instance, a windshield

wiper installed on a Mercedes A Class

car which is not sold in the United

States could be considered substantially

similar to a wiper on the Mercedes M

Class vehicle which is manufactured

and sold in the United States. If

DaimlerChrysler AG receives

information in Germany indicating a

potential safety problem with the A

Class wiper blades, how relevant would

that be to identifying a possible safety

problem with wiper blades on a M Class

vehicle? The potential for relevance

grows if the wiping systems themselves

on the two vehicles are identical or

substantially similar, or if they are

replaceable by the same part.

C. Cut off dates. Although a

manufacturer is required to notify

NHTSA, owners, and dealers if it or the

agency determines that a vehicle

contains a safety-related defect, it need

not provide a remedy without charge if

the determination is made more than 10

years after its first sale. See 49 U.S.C.

30120(g), as amended by Section 4 of

the TREAD Act. There may be types of

information otherwise covered by this

rule that, due to the passage of time or

other occurrence, need not be provided

for safety purposes. If any commenter

believes that there should be exclusions

based on time, the commenter should

provide a detailed rationale for such a

belief.

D. Questions to be answered. We seek

answers to the following questions on

the type of information to be reported.

General Questions

1. Which offices of manufacturers

receive, classify, and evaluate warranty

and claims data, and other data or

information, related to deaths, serious

injuries, and property damage involving

a manufacturer’s products that occur in

the United States?

2. In what form is that data received

and maintained? If it is maintained

electronically, please describe the data

base system in which it is kept.

3. Is the information referred to in

question 1 otherwise classified (for

example, warranty codes, lawsuits)? If

so, how? By whom is such information

evaluated?

4. Do manufacturers in the United

States (defined to include importers of

vehicles or equipment for resale),

currently receive warranty and claims

data, and other data or information,

related to deaths, serious injuries, and

property damage involving their

products that occur outside the United

States? If so, in what form are these data

received?

5. If a manufacturer in the United

States does not receive, maintain, and

evaluate such data or information

referred to in paragraph 3 above, what

entity does (e.g., foreign affiliate,

factory-authorized importer, outside

counsel, other third-party entity)? Do

manufacturers require that entity to

make periodic reports to it?

6. In what form is foreign the data or

information received (e.g.,

electronically, e-mail, inter-company

memo)? Is it maintained separately or is

it combined with data about events

occurring in the United States?

7. What is the length of time that

manufacturers maintain warranty data

and claims data? is this period different

for data related to events occurring

outside the United States?

8. Are U.S. dealers currently

collecting and/or maintaining

information relevant to early warning

reporting? If so, what is this

information, and to what extent is it

furnished to the manufacturer?

9. Should there be a cut off date for

reporting (e.g., not require it regarding

vehicles or equipment that are older

than some specified age)? If so, what age

or ages?

10. Is there additional information or

data beyond that mentioned in this

notice that manufacturers should report

to NHTSA that would assist in the

identification of defects related to motor

vehicle safety? For example, assembly

plant quality reports, dealer feedback

summaries, test fleet summary reports,

fleet experience, and rental car company

reports.

Questions Relating to Claims

1. What is the appropriate definition

of ‘‘claim?’

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6541

2. What information should be

submitted (e.g., just the number of

claims by make, model year and

component or system, or more

information, including summaries and

names of complainants)?

3. Should NHTSA only require the

submission if claims are about problems

with certain components? If so, which

ones?

4. Should information about all

claims involving serious injuries or

deaths be submitted, or should there be

some threshold?

Questions Relating to Warranties

1. Should warranty data be reported?

If so, are there specific categories which

should be included or excluded ?

2. How do manufacturers maintain

warranty data? How long is it kept? For

what purposes is it kept? How do

manufacturers review warranty data to

identify possible safety concerns?

3. What thresholds, if any, would be

appropriate with respect to specific

vehicle components, systems, and

equipment items, below which warranty

information would not have to be

reported to NHTSA? Should there be

different thresholds for different

components or systems?

4. Should thresholds be based solely

on claims rates, or should there be some

absolute number of claims that would

trigger a reporting requirement?

5. What sorts of warranty information

should be reported (e.g., make, model,

model year, component)?

6. Are there warranty codes common

to the motor vehicle industry? Passenger

car industry? Heavy truck industry?

Motor home industry? Child seat

industry? Etc.?

7. Should we require warranty data to

be submitted using standardized codes?

If so, what level of standardization

would be appropriate?

8. In what form should we require

warranty information to be submitted?

Questions Relating to Lawsuits

1. What information should be

provided about lawsuits?

2. Should information be provided

about each lawsuit involving an alleged

defect?

3. If not, what threshold would be

appropriate? Should there be different

thresholds based on the component or

system involved?

Questions Relating to Design Changes

1. Should information about design

changes be provided? If so, should all

changes be covered or just or only those

relating to specified components or

systems important to vehicle safety? If

so, which components or systems?

2. Should different considerations

apply to prospective-only running

changes than to changes to service

parts?

Questions Relating to Deaths and

Serious Injuries

1. What systems for characterizing the

seriousness of injuries are used in

countries other than the United States?

How do they relate to the AIS system?

2. Are the AIS3 ‘‘serious’’ criteria

appropriate as indicia of ‘‘serious

injury’’? If not, what criteria are

appropriate?

3. How shall it be determined whether

a claim pertaining to an injury pertains

to a serious injury? What assumptions

should be made? If an initial claim does

not allege a ‘‘serious’’ injury, should the

manufacturer be required to report the

claim later if it learns that the injury

was serious or alleged to be serious?

4. Would manufacturers find it less

burdensome to report to NHTSA all

allegations of injury caused by a product

defect?

5. How and to which office of a

manufacturer are deaths and serious

injuries reported? Is the answer different

with respect to incidents that occur in

foreign countries?

Questions Relating to Property Damage

1. What data should manufacturers

include as ‘‘aggregate statistical data’’?

2. What type of statistical data relating

to property damage (including fire and

corrosion) do manufacturers maintain?

What corporate office is responsible for

their maintenance? Is the answer

different with respect to incidents and

claims in foreign countries?

3. How is this data maintained by

manufacturers? How is it used?

4. How should this data be submitted

to NHTSA to best provide an early

warning of potential safety defects?

Questions on Internal Investigations

1. Should a manufacturer be required

to report information on active

investigations that it has initiated with

respect to potential defects in its

vehicles or equipment? How, if at all,

should it be determined that these are

safety related? What is the extent to

which this information should be

reported?

2. What is an appropriate definition of

an internal investigation that should be

reported to NHTSA?

3. Should manufacturers be required

to report such investigations as soon as

they are commenced? If not, at what

point should the investigation be

reported to NHTSA?

Questions on Customer Satisfaction

Campaigns, Etc.

1. Should ‘‘customer satisfaction

campaigns,’’ ‘‘consumer advisories,’’

‘‘recalls’’ or ‘‘other activities involving

the repair of motor vehicles or motor

vehicle equipment’’ be defined in

NHTSA’s regulation, and, if so, what

would be an appropriate definition for

each of these terms?

2. How many and what kind of

customer satisfaction campaigns,

consumer advisories, recalls, or other

activity involving repairs have occurred

since January 1, 1998, that were not

required to be reported to NHTSA under

49 CFR 573.8? Indicate whether these

occurred in the United States or foreign

countries. Please submit a copy of all

communications provided to consumers

or dealers with respect to each such

campaign, advisory, recall, or other

activity.

Questions on Identical and

‘‘Substantially Similar’’ Motor Vehicles

and Equipment

1. Is the word ‘‘identical’’ understood

internationally, or do we need to define

it? If so, how?

2. How should a manufacturer

determine if a vehicle sold in a foreign

country is ‘‘substantially similar’’ to

vehicles sold in the United States? Is it

enough that the vehicles share the same

platform and/or engine family? If not,

why not?

3. How should ‘‘substantially similar’’

motor vehicle equipment be defined?

Would the definition be different with

respect to individual parts, component

parts, assemblies and systems? Other

than tires and off-vehicle equipment

(such as child seats), should the

definition be restricted to replacement

equipment for substantially similar

motor vehicles?

Questions on Field Reports

1. What is an appropriate definition

for ‘‘field report’?

2. In the context of field reports for

which information is to be provided,

should there be a list of systems, parts,

and components that are safety related?

Should it be the same as the list for

warranty claims and other claims?

3. Do manufacturers screen field

reports for safety-related information? If

so, what are their systems and how do

they work?

4. How do manufacturers process and

maintain field reports? Is all information

entered into computers?

5. What information regarding field

reports should be provided NHTSA?

Should there be a numerical or rate

threshold before field reports must be

provided?

6542 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

V. When should information be

reported?

Section 30166(m)(3)(A) and (B) state

that the information covered by those

paragraphs shall be reported

‘‘periodically or upon request’’ by

NHTSA. Section 30166(m)(3)(C) states

that the information covered by that

paragraph shall be reported ‘‘in such

manner as [NHTSA] establishes by

regulation.’’

A. Periodically. The statute authorizes

us to require periodic reporting by

manufacturers of information related to

the early warning of defects. Some types

of information may be more significant

than other (e.g., deaths allegedly caused

by safety defects) and justify a more

frequent period of reporting than other

types.

1. Upon receipt of information—We

are considering proposing that any

manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor

vehicle equipment report to us within

two weeks of its receipt of information

alleging or demonstrating that a fatality

has occurred due to a defect in one of

its products. This would be an episodic

report providing certain information

when the manufacturer receives it,

rather than a report containing

information that accumulates within a

specific period of time.

2. Monthly. Problems arising in

certain types of motor vehicles or

equipment may require more frequent

reporting than others, especially where

an accumulation of claims or warranty

data has reached whatever threshold for

reporting that we eventually set. Defectrelated information concerning school

buses, emergency vehicles, child

restraints, automatic restraint systems,

seat belts, and fuel systems seems

critical to us. We may require reporting

of information in these categories on a

monthly basis. This information would

be due in our offices on a specified day

(e.g., the 15th day) following the end of

each calendar month.

We might also require manufacturers

of vehicles and equipment to report to

us monthly if they learn of an incident

in which it was alleged that the vehicle

or equipment of the manufacturer

caused or contributed to an injury that

required the hospitalization of any

person for more than observation.

Although the consequences may vary,

it is also important for us to be aware

promptly of failures of remedies that

have been implemented to address

safety-related defects and

noncompliances, since the components

or systems involved have already been

determined to create a safety problem.

Therefore, reports of such problems

might also be required on a monthly

basis.

3. Quarterly. Reporting other types of

safety-related data might be on a

quarterly basis. These data might

include aggregate statistical data,

warranty claims related to other

components, and claims/lawsuits

alleging fires. These reports would cover

the calendar quarters of a year and be

submitted by a specified day following

the end of the reporting quarter (i.e., a

report for information received from

January 1 through March 31 would be

due sometime in April). This is the

same schedule of reporting that we have

established under 49 CFR 573.7 for the

reporting of information about safety

recalls.

B. Upon NHTSA’s request. The

TREAD Act requires all manufacturers

to provide information and data relevant

to early warning when NHTSA requests.

Such a requirement complements

NHTSA’s pre-TREAD authorities to

request safety-related information as

part of our investigations.

C. Questions to be answered. We seek

answers to the following questions

relating to when information should be

reported. In responding to each of the

following questions, please provide

specific recommendations, and the

rationale for each recommendation.

1. Should reporting frequency vary

depending on the type of information

(e.g., deaths, injuries, warranty rates,

complaints, etc.)? If so, what is an

appropriate frequency for each type?

2. Should reporting frequency vary

depending on the type of vehicle or

equipment (e.g., passenger car, bus,

child seats or other equipment)? If so,

what is an appropriate frequency for

each type?

3. Should reporting frequency vary

depending upon the component or

system involved (e.g., air bag, child

restraint, seat belt assemblies, brakes)? If

so, what is an appropriate frequency for

each?

4. Should manufacturers of particular

equipment, such as off-vehicle and

accessory equipment, be required to

report data on a periodic basis, or only

if they receive certain information such

as claims alleging deaths or serious

injuries involving their products?

VI. How Should Information Be

Reported?

At the present time, we have limited

knowledge about early warning

information that manufacturers,

particularly equipment manufacturers,

receive, in what form it is received, and

how, if at all, they route, code, maintain,

and review the information. We believe

that it is likely that the types of

information to be reported under

Section 30166(m)(3) are kept in a variety

of manufacturer computer systems and

formats. Some manufacturers probably

use different computer systems for

different types of information, and some

may not be computerized at all. To be

able to use this information efficiently,

NHTSA will have to maintain it in

computer systems that can read and

incorporate the information into a

standardized set of data fields,

definitions, and codes. We seek

comments on the best ways to assure

that NHTSA can do this.

In our view, the early warning

provisions contemplate that

manufacturers must do more than

merely provide raw information and

data. Section 30166(m)(3) states that the

information reportable to NHTSA is

‘‘information which is received by the

manufacturer derived from foreign and

domestic sources.’’ One meaning of

‘‘derive’’ is ‘‘to reach or obtain by

reasoning; deduce; infer’’ (Random

House Compact Unabridged Dictionary,

Second Special Edition (1996), p. 536).

The aspects of reasoning, deduction,

and inference in the definition of

‘‘derive,’’ in our view, authorize a rule

that requires a manufacturer to process,

organize, and to some degree analyze

the raw data and information it has, so

that meaningful information is

provided. Moreover, it is evident that

we may specify the form in which

information is reported in order to

ensure that it can be efficiently used for

its intended purpose of identifying

defects related to motor vehicle safety.

NHTSA would expect manufacturers

to provide collated and aggregated

information by vehicle make, model,

model year, and component system,

broken down by failure or fault codes.

Since it is absolutely essential that

NHTSA be able to obtain information in

a standardized form, we anticipate

identifying relevant codes for reporting

purposes.

A possible alternative on which we

would appreciate comments would be

to have each manufacturer of vehicles or

equipment submit a spreadsheet in a

specified format with the aggregate

number of claims and other information

(such as production volumes) by make,

model, model year, and component (we

would specify which components). The

reports would be individually

categorized according to the topics

discussed above (e.g., injury claims,

death claims, lawsuits, incidents). We

would then be able to run a computer

program to identify spikes or unusual

trends in each of these categories.

To assure that manufacturers

understand their reporting

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6543

responsibilities, we are considering

developing a matrix of information with

the reporting periods specified from left

to right across the top (on bi-weekly,

monthly, quarterly) and the type of

information to be provided listed in a

left-hand column from top to bottom.

Thus, under ‘‘Deaths,’’ we would place

‘‘X’’ in the column whose heading reads

‘‘On Receipt.’’ We could develop a

separate matrix for each type of

manufacturer so that it would know

exactly what to submit and when.

Questions to be answered. We seek

answers to the following questions

relating to the manner in which

information should be reported.

1. How would manufacturers prefer to

report information to us (e.g., hard copy,

electronically)? If both, what would be

in hard copy? What would be in

electronic format? Which electronic

format(s) would be preferable?

2. Should information regarding

deaths and serious injuries be submitted

in the form in which it is received by

the manufacturer, the form in which it

is entered into a database by the

manufacturer, or in some other way?

The following five questions relate to

the possible use of a spreadsheet for

reporting aggregate information.

1. What do manufacturers understand

the term ‘‘aggregate statistical

information’’ to mean?

2. Is aggregate statistical information

regarding claims, deaths and injuries

likely to be useful in identifying

potential safety-related defects? Would

it be too general to be useful?

3. Would this type of aggregate

statistical information tend to result in

a large number of investigations into

issues that are not related to potential

safety-related defects?

4. Would the submission of

supplemental information beyond the

aggregate statistical information be

necessary or appropriate to provide

NHTSA with sufficient information

upon which to decide to open an

investigation? What types of such

information?

5. If NHTSA needs to submit requests

for supplemental information, should

the requests be made as part of an

investigation? If not, why not? If not,

how should NHTSA characterize these

requests, and should the requests and

responses be made available to the

public?

VII. How NHTSA Might Handle and

Utilize Early Warning Information

Reported To It

A. Specifications for use of

information. Section 30166(m)(4)(A)(i)

and (ii) require that our early warning

rule specify how the information

reported to us will be used. Those

paragraphs provide:

(A) [NHTSA’s] specifications. In requiring

the reporting of any information requested by

[NHTSA] under this subsection, [NHTSA]

shall specify in the final rule * * * (i) how

[early warning] information will be reviewed

and utilized to assist in the identification of

defects related to motor vehicle safety; [and]

(ii) the systems and processes [that NHTSA]

will employ or establish to review and utilize

such information.

These provisions relate to internal

NHTSA matters and are not ordinarily

required by the Administrative

Procedure Act to be adopted pursuant to

notice and comment. Nevertheless, we

are seeking public comment on ways to

improve our collection, review, and

analysis of information and data with

the new reporting tools which Congress

has given us.

At this point, in the immediate

aftermath of the enactment of the

TREAD Act, we have only just begun to

consider how we might best implement

the early warning information and data

received, but have formulated no

procedures. In part, these procedures

will depend upon the form of the rule

as we will propose it later this year.

They will also depend on the result of

the ongoing study of the ‘‘standards,

criteria, procedures and methods’’ used

by NHTSA in determining whether to

open a defect or noncompliance

investigation that is being conducted

pursuant to Section 15 of the TREAD

Act. In the NPRM, we will specifically

address the matters covered by

subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above, and

indicate how we propose to amend 49

CFR part 554, Standards Enforcement

and Defects Investigation (one purpose

of which is to inform the public of the

procedures we follow in investigating

possible safety-related defects).

Questions to be answered.

1. How should NHTSA review and

utilize the information to be submitted

under the early warning rule?

2. What system or processes should

NHTSA utilize in reviewing this

information?

B. Information in possession of

manufacturer. Section 30166(m)(4)(B),

Information in possession of

manufacturer, states that our early

warning regulations ‘‘may not require a

manufacturer of a motor vehicle or

motor vehicle equipment to maintain or

submit records respecting information

not in the possession of the

manufacturer.’’ There is nothing in the

legislative history that amplifies the

statutory language. We interpret

‘‘possession’’ as meaning not only

information in the actual possession of

a manufacturer, but also constructive

possession and ultimate control of

information, such as information in

foreign countries, or information

possessed by outside counsel or

consultants. We interpret Section

30166(m)(4)(B) as prohibiting us from

imposing a requirement that a

manufacturer collect data that it does

not possess.

A colloquy on the floor of the House

does not explain the provision but

addressed the need to preserve relevant

records:

Mr. Markey: Concern has been expressed

that this provision not become a loophole for

unscrupulous manufacturers who might be

willing to destroy a record in order to

demonstrate that it is no longer in its

possession. Would [Mr. Tauzin] agree that it

is in [NHTSA’s] discretion to require a

manufacturer to maintain records that are in

fact in the manufacturer’s possession and

that it would be a violation of such a

requirement to destroy such a record?

Mr. Tauzin: The gentleman is again correct.

We regard this as encouraging, if not

mandating, us to amend our record

keeping regulations in 49 CFR part 576

to assure that records covered by the

early warning regulation are kept for an

appropriate length of time. We note that

part 576 currently applies only to

vehicle manufacturers. Consistent with

the above colloquy, we intend to expand

its applicability to manufacturers of at

least certain types of equipment.

Further, we intend to adopt a

requirement to assure that

manufacturers that are currently

collecting information that would be

reportable under the early warning

requirements do not cease collecting it.

C. Disclosure. Section 30166(m)(4)(C),

Disclosure, states that:

None of the information collected pursuant

to the final rule . . . shall be disclosed

pursuant to section 30167(b) unless the

Secretary determines the disclosure of such

information will assist in carrying out

sections 30117(b) and 30118 through 30121.

We believe that section

30166(m)(4)(C) will have almost no

impact. Historically, requests by the

public for information that have

submitted to us have been addressed

under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. Section 30167(b),

Defect and noncompliance information,

provides for disclosure of information

related to a defect or noncompliance

that we decide will assist us in carrying

out Sections 30117(b), Maintaining

purchaser records and procedures;

Section 30118, Notification of defects

and noncompliance; Section 30119,

Notification procedures; Section 30120,

Remedies for defects and

noncompliance; and Section 30121,

Provisional notification and civil

6544 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

actions to enforce. Historically, NHTSA

has not invoked Section 30167(b) in

deciding to release information to the

public.

In signing H.R. 5164 on November 1,

2000, the President stated that he was

directing us ‘‘to implement the

information disclosure requirements of

the [TREAD] Act in a manner that

assures maximum public availability of

information.’’ As a practical matter, we

do not interpret Section 30166(m)(4)(C)

as affecting the current policies and

practices applicable to the disclosure of

information to the public.

The primary differences between preTREAD Act and post-TREAD Act

reporting are likely to be in the

mechanisms for reporting and amount

of information reported. Before the

TREAD Act, other than material

submitted pursuant to 49 CFR 573.8,

information in NHTSA’s possession

relating to a possible defect that was not

the subject of an ongoing investigation

was primarily in the form of consumer

complaints. Under the TREAD Act,

information will also be generated

through periodic reports to NHTSA of

information that a manufacturer might

not otherwise have disclosed unless

specifically asked by NHTSA to provide

it. However, most of this information is

likely to be similar to the types of

information that NHTSA regularly

obtained during its investigations

pursuant to information requests or

special orders.

The TREAD Act does not affect the

right of a manufacturer to ask for a

determination that information it may

report to NHTSA is confidential.

D. Burdensome requirements.

Section 30166(m)(4)(D), Burdensome

requirements, requires that the final

rule:

shall not impose requirements unduly

burdensome to a manufacturer or a motor

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, taking

into account the manufacturer’s cost of

complying with such requirements and

[NHTSA’s] ability to use the information

sought in a meaningful manner to assist in

the identification of defects related to motor

vehicle safety.

On the basis of this ANPRM,

manufacturers should have a general

idea of the types of data and information

that they may be required to submit

under a final rule. This should allow

them to make a tentative assessment of

the burdens that compliance may entail

and to provide comments.

Some burdens may be relatively

infrequent, such as identifying and

reviewing relevant warranty codes.

Some burdens may be mostly one-time

events, such as programming computer

programs. Other burdens may be

periodic, such as reporting warranty

information, claims, deaths and serious

injuries, and lawsuits.

In light of recent developments, some

manufacturers may already be refining

existing internal procedures, or

developing new procedures, intended to

provide them with an earlier warning of

potential safety problems. To the extent

that these procedures are being

developed and implemented as part of

a corporate policy and the procedures

parallel those that are adopted in the

final rule, the burden imposed by a final

rule would appear to be lessened.

Questions To Be Answered

While we recognize that we have not

proposed specific requirements, we

would appreciate comments providing

us with cost and burden estimates to the

extent possible.

1. What are the estimated startup and

ongoing costs (including financial as

well as manpower costs) of complying

with the early warning reporting

requirements discussed in this notice?

What is the basis for the estimate?

2. How should NHTSA decide

whether particular requirements are

‘‘unduly’’ burdensome? Should we

balance the burdens against the

anticipated benefits of receiving the

information in question? If so, how

should we perform that balancing?

3. What is the most effective early

warning information and least

burdensome ways of providing it?

4. Have manufacturers developed or

are manufacturers beginning to develop

and implement their own early warning

reporting procedures in advance of

NHTSA’s rulemaking? If so, what are

these procedures. How do these

procedures differ from those discussed

in the ANPRM? How are they similar?

VIII. Periodic Review

Under section 30166(m)(5), NHTSA

must specify in the final rule

‘‘procedures for the periodic review and

update of such rule.’’ Once a final rule

amending Part 573 is developed and

issued, we anticipate that experience

will indicate areas where the regulation

ought to be amended, to add or delete

information required, and to modify our

information-gathering procedures. We

would then implement rulemaking to

make these adjustments. Accordingly,

we plan to amend Part 554 to state that

we will review our defect informationgathering procedures at least once every

four years. It is likely that the initial

review will be sooner than that period.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures;

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995. This advance notice was not

reviewed under Executive Order 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. Due

to the preliminary nature of this

document, NHTSA has identified few

specific changes that it might propose to

its regulations. Further, it has limited

current cost information that might be

relevant to any potential changes.

Accordingly, NHTSA is unable now to

evaluate the economic impacts that this

rulemaking might ultimately have. At

this time, it does not appear that the

rule resulting from this rulemaking will

be significant. However, NHTSA will

reassess this rulemaking in relation to

the Executive Order, the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4) and other requirements

for analyzing rulemaking impacts after

using the information received in

response to this advance notice to select

specific proposed changes. To that end,

the agency solicits comments,

information, and data useful in

assessing the impacts of making changes

as specified in Section 3(b) of the

TREAD Act as discussed in this

document.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. NHTSA

has considered the impact of this

rulemaking action in relation to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec.

601 et seq.). Most manufacturers of

motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment are not small entities. We

have asked manufacturers of motor

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment

to specifically comment on the burdens

that might be imposed upon them by

compliance with Section 3(b) of the

TREAD Act. The final rule will not

impose new substantive requirements,

but will require new reporting.

However, the requirements have not

been delineated. Accordingly, no

regulatory flexibility analysis has been

prepared at this time.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism).

Executive Order 13132 on ‘‘Federalism’’

requires us to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of ‘‘regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ The E.O. defines this

phrase to include regulations ‘‘that have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’ A final rule

based upon this ANPRM, would

regulate the manufacturers of motor

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 6545

would not have substantial direct effect

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in E.O. 13132.

Civil Justice Reform. A rule based on

this ANPRM would not have a

retroactive or preemptive effect, and

judicial review of it may be obtained

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section

does not require that a petition for

reconsideration be filed prior to seeking

judicial review.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The final rule will require

manufacturers of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment to report

information and data to NHTSA

periodically and upon request. We may

also adopt a standardized form for

reporting this information, so as to

ensure consistency of responses. These

provisions are considered to be

information collection requirements, as

that term is defined by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) in 5

CFR part 1329. Accordingly, if

requirements are proposed, they will be

submitted to OMB for its approval,

pursuant to the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Request for Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit

Comments?

Your comments must be written and

in English. To ensure that your

comments are correctly filed in the

Docket, please include the docket

number of this document in your

comments.

Your comments must not be more

than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We

established this limit to encourage you

to write your primary comments in a

concise fashion. However, you may

attach necessary additional documents

to your comments. There is no limit on

the length of the attachments.

Please submit two copies of your

comments, including the attachments,

to Docket Management at the beginning

of this document, under ADDRESSES.

How Can I be Sure That my Comments

Were Received?

If you wish Docket Management to

notify you upon its receipt of your

comments, enclose a self-addressed,

stamped postcard in the envelope

containing your comments. Upon

receiving your comments, Docket

Management will return the postcard by

mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business

Information?

If you wish to submit any information

under a claim of confidentiality, you

should submit three copies of your

complete submission, including the

information you claim to be confidential

business information, to the Chief

Counsel, NHTSA (NCC–30), at the

address given at the beginning of this

document under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you

should submit two copies from which

you have deleted the claimed

confidential business information, to

Docket Management at the address

given at the beginning of this document

under ADDRESSES. When you send a

comment containing information

claimed to be confidential business

information, you should include a cover

letter setting forth the information

specified in our confidential business

information regulation, 49 CFR Part 512.

Will the Agency Consider Late

Comments?

We will consider all comments that

Docket Management receives before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated at the beginning

of this notice under DATES. Because we

must issue a final rule not later than

June 30, 2002, and a proposed rule in

the interim, we are unlikely to extend

the comment closing dates for this

notice or for the proposed rule.

However, in accordance with our

policies, to the extent possible, we will

also consider comments that Docket

Management receives after the specified

comment closing date. If Docket

Management receives a comment too

late for us to consider in developing the

proposed rule, we will consider that

comment as an informal suggestion for

future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments

Submitted by Other People?

You may read the comments received

by Docket Management at the address

and times given near the beginning of

this document under ADDRESSES.

You may also see the comments on

the internet. To read the comments on

the internet, take the following steps:

(1) Go to the Docket Management

System (DMS) Web page of the

Department of Transportation (http://

dms.dot.gov/).

(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’

(3) On the next page (http://

dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the

heading of this document. Example: if

the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

2001–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’

(4) After typing the docket number,

click on ‘‘search.’’

(5) The next page contains docket

summary information for the docket you

selected. Click on the comments you

wish to see.

You may download the comments.

The comments are imaged documents,

in either TIFF or pdf format. Please note

that even after the comment closing

date, we will continue to file relevant

information in the Docket as it becomes

available. Further, some people may

submit late comments. Accordingly, we

recommend that you periodically search

the Docket for new material.

Authority: Sec. 3(b), Pub. L. 106–414;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: January 12, 2001.

Kenneth N. Weinstein,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 01–1502 Filed 1–12–01; 3:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. 010103003-1003-01, I.D.

083000B]

RIN 0648-AN92

List of Fisheries for 2001

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes

changes for 2001 to the List of Fisheries

(LOF) as required by the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The

proposed LOF for 2001 reflects new

information on interactions between

commercial fisheries and marine

mammals. Under the MMPA, NMFS

must place a commercial fishery on the

LOF into one of three categories based

upon the level of serious injury and

mortality of marine mammals that

occurs incidental to that fishery. The

categorization of a fishery in the LOF

determines whether participants in that

fishery are subject to certain provisions

of the MMPA, such as registration,

observer coverage, and take reduction

plan requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 8, 2001.