[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6532-6545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1502]


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

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?

[[Page 6533]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notification 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6534]]

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\

    \2\ The 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 safety-related 
defect that a manufacturer has determined and reported to NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 6536]]

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 safety-related 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 crash-avoidance 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

[[Page 6537]]

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 safety-related 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 
newly-developed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6538]]

the claim relate to a crash; the Vehicle Safety Act is concerned with 
non-operational 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

[[Page 6539]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We do not plan to require the submission of information 
involving disputes with individual owners about possible problems 
with their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6540]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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?'

[[Page 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?

[[Page 6542]]

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. Defect-related 
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 6544]]

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 pre-TREAD 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 information-gathering 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,

[[Page 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 
four-digit 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