66190 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 574, 576, 579

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–8677; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AI25

Reporting of Information and

Documents About Potential Defects

Retention of Records That Could

Indicate Defects

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes a

regulation that would implement the

‘‘early warning reporting requirements’’

of the Transportation Recall

Enhancement, Accountability, and

Documentation (TREAD) Act. Under

this proposal, motor vehicle and motor

vehicle equipment manufacturers would

be required to report information and to

submit documents on customer

satisfaction campaigns and other

activities that may assist in identifying

defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We are also proposing amendments to

NHTSA’s general and tire recordkeeping

regulations (Parts 576 and 574) to assure

that manufacturers retain the

information that must be reported to

NHTSA under the early warning rule.

DATES: Comment Closing Date:

Comments must be received on or

before February 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: All comments on this

NPRM 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 Jonathan

White, Office of Defects Investigation,

NHTSA (phone: 202–366–5226). For

legal issues, contact Taylor Vinson,

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone:

202–366–5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

II. Background: The TREAD Act (Public Law

106–414)

III. Manufacturers That Would Be Covered by

the New Reporting Requirements

A. Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

B. Manufacturers of motor vehicle

equipment.

1.Original equipment.

2.Replacement equipment, including tires.

C. Foreign manufacturers of motor vehicles

and equipment.

D. Other representatives of manufacturers.

IV. Information That Would Be Reported

A. Production information.

B. Claim: a proposed definition.

C. Notice: a proposed definition.

D. Identification of the product in claims

and notices.

E. Claims and notices involving death.

1. Whether to define ‘‘death’’

2. Claims involving death.

3. Notices involving death.

4. Information about deaths.

F. Claims and notices involving injuries.

1. The difficulties of defining ‘‘serious

injury.’’

2. Reporting of incidents in which persons

were injured, based on claims and

notices.

G. Other possible conditions on reporting

of claims and notices for death and

injury.

H. Identical or substantially similar motor

vehicles or equipment.

1. The meaning of ‘‘identical.’’

2. Substantially similar motor vehicles.

3. Substantially similar motor vehicle

equipment and tires.

I. Claims and notices involving property

damage.

1. Definition of ‘‘property damage,’’ and

whether to define ‘‘aggregate statistical

data.’’

2. Reports involving property damage.

J. Consumer complaints.

1. Definition of ‘‘consumer complaint.’’

2. The rationale of requiring reports of

consumer complaints.

K. Warranty claims information.

1. Definitions of ‘‘warranty’’ and ‘‘warranty

claim.’’

2. Reports involving warranty claims.

L. Field reports.

1. Definition of ‘‘field report.’’

2. Reporting of field reports.

M. Customer satisfaction campaigns,

consumer advisories; recalls, or other

activities involving the repair or

replacement of motor vehicles or motor

vehicle equipment.

N. Components, systems, and fires to be

included in reports.

O. One-time reporting of information on

certain information received from

January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002, on

1994–2003 model year vehicles, and on

child restraints and tires manufactured

on or after January 1, 1998.

V. Information That We Would Not Require

at This Time

A. Internal investigations and design

changes in parts and components.

B. Most activities and events in foreign

countries.

VI. When Information Would be Reported

A. Periodically.

B. Upon NHTSA’s request.

VII. The Manner and Form in Which

Information Would be Reported

VIII. How NHTSA Plans to Handle and

Utilize Early Warning Information

A. Review and use of information.

B. Information in the possession of the

manufacturer.

C. Disclosure.

D. The proposed requirements are not

unduly burdensome.

E. Periodic Review.

IX. Proposed Extension of Recordkeeping

Requirements to Include Manufacturers

of Child Restraint Systems and Tires

X. Administrative Amendments to 49 CFR

Part 573 to Accommodate Final Rules

Implementing 49 U.S.C. Sections

30166(l) and (m)

XI. Rulemaking Analyses

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule—the first phase of early

warning reporting rulemaking—would in

effect divide manufacturers of motor vehicles

and motor vehicle equipment into two

groups with different responsibilities for

reporting information that could indicate the

existence of potential safety related defects.

The first group would consist of larger

manufacturers of motor vehicles, and all

manufacturers of child restraint systems and

tires. In general, vehicle manufacturers

would report separately on five categories of

vehicles (if they produced, imported, or sold

500 or more of a category annually in the

United States): light vehicles, medium-heavy

vehicles, buses, trailers, and motorcycles.

These manufacturers would report certain

specified information about each incident

involving a death that occurred in the United

States that is identified in a claim against the

manufacturer or in a notice to the

manufacturer alleging or proving that the

death was caused by a possible defect in the

manufacturer’s product together with each

death occurring in foreign countries that is

identified in a claim against the manufacturer

involving the manufacturer’s product, or one

that is identical or substantially similar to a

product that the manufacturer has offered for

sale in the United States. These

manufacturers would also report the

following:

• Injuries. Certain specified information

about each incident that occurred in the

United States in which a person was injured

that is identified in a claim against the

manufacturer or in a notice to the

manufacturer alleging or proving that the

injury was caused by a possible defect in the

manufacturer’s product.

• Property damage. Manufacturers other

than child seat manufacturers would report

the numbers of claims for $1,000 or more in

property damage that occurred in the United

States that are related to alleged problems

with certain specified components and

systems (there would be no minimum

amount of property damage for claims

received by tire manufacturers).

• Consumer complaints. Manufacturers

(other than tire manufacturers) would report

the numbers of consumer complaints they

receive that are related to problems with

certain specified components and systems

that occurred in the United States.

• Warranty claims information.

Manufacturers would report the number of

warranty claims they receive that are related

to problems with certain specified

components and systems that occurred in the

United States.

• Field reports. Manufacturers would

report the total number of field reports they

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66191

receive from the manufacturer’s employees

and dealers, and from fleets, that are related

to problems with certain specified

components and systems and potential

defects that occurred in the United States. In

addition, manufacturers would provide

copies of reports received from their

employees and fleets, but would not need to

provide copies of reports received from

dealers.

These manufacturers would report the

numbers identified above for each model and

model or production year.

A tire manufacturer or brand name owner

would not have to report any information

other than information relating to incidents

involving deaths for tires of the same size

and design for which the cumulative annual

production and importation does not exceed

15,000 (readers should note this exclusion in

reviewing the proposed reporting

requirements of this document, as we may

not repeat it in all instances in which it may

apply).

The second group would consist of all

other manufacturers of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment, i.e., vehicle

manufacturers insofar as they produced,

imported, or sold in the United States fewer

than 500 light vehicles, medium-heavy

vehicles, buses, motorcycles, or trailers

annually, manufacturers of original motor

vehicle equipment and manufacturers of

replacement motor vehicle equipment other

than child restraint systems and tires. These

manufacturers would report the same

information about incidents involving deaths

as the first category, but would not be

required to report any other information.

In addition, all vehicle and equipment

manufacturers in both groups would be

required to provide copies of all documents

sent or made available to more than one

dealer, distributor, or owner, in the United

States with respect to consumer advisories,

recalls, or activities involving the repair or

replacement of vehicles or equipment.

Reports would be submitted electronically,

in specified formats. The components and

systems on which reporting would be

required would vary, depending on the type

of product involved.

There would be four reporting periods each

calendar year of three months each. All

reports would be due not later than 30 days

after the end of a calendar quarter. For

submission of documents, the documents

would be due not later than 30 days after the

end of the month in which they are received

or generated by the manufacturer. To help

NHTSA identify trends that could indicate

potential safety problems, manufacturers

would be required, on a one-time basis, to

report historical information by quarter for

each of the reportable items covering the

three-year period from January 1, 2000

through December 31, 2002, the date

preceding the beginning of the first reporting

period that would be established by the final

rule, January 1, 2003.

The early warning reporting requirements

would comprise subpart C of a new 49 CFR

Part 579. The foreign defect reporting

requirements proposed on October 11, 2001

(66 FR 51907) would comprise Subpart B of

Part 579. This NPRM proposes a Subpart A

containing general requirements that will

apply to both subparts.

We also propose to expand recordkeeping

requirements:

• For vehicles, records now required to be

maintained under 49 CFR Part 576 for eight

years would have to be maintained for 10

years.

• For the first time, manufacturers of tires

and child restraint systems would be

required to maintain the same types of

records that manufacturers of vehicles have

been required to keep under 49 CFR Part 576.

• Manufacturers of tires would be required

to retain for five years records of purchasers

of tires they manufacture. Manufacturers of

motor vehicles would be required to retain

for five years records of tires on each vehicle

manufactured and the purchaser of each

vehicle. Currently, 49 CFR Part 574 requires

that these records be retained for three years.

The early warning final rule, the final rule

pertaining to foreign defect campaigns, and

current 49 CFR 573.8 would become 49 CFR

Part 579. The provisions of current Part 579

would be moved to Part 573. Proposed

effective dates: for amendments to Parts 574

and 576, 30 days after publication of the final

rule; for revised Part 579, January 1, 2003.

II. Background: The TREAD Act (Public Law

106–414)

The Transportation Recall Enhancement,

Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD)

Act was enacted on November 1, 2000,

Public Law 106–414.

The TREAD Act provides for NHTSA to

require manufacturers of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment to submit

information, periodically or upon NHTSA’s

request, that includes claims for deaths and

serious injuries, property damage data,

communications to customers and others,

information on incidents resulting in

fatalities or serious injuries from possible

defects in vehicles or equipment in the

United States or in identical or substantially

similar vehicles or equipment in a foreign

country, and other information that would

assist NHTSA in identifying potential safetyrelated defects.

The TREAD Act amends 49 U.S.C. 30166

to add a new subsection (m), Early warning

reporting requirements. Sections

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

respectively, the elements to be reported, the

handling and utilization of reported

information, 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 Secretary has delegated to the NHTSA

Administrator the authority to carry out 49

U.S.C. Chapter 301 (49 CFR 1.50(a)).

On January 22, 2001, we issued an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to

discuss and to solicit comments on the ways

in which NHTSA may best implement these

statutory provisions (66 FR 6532). The reader

is referred to that document for a discussion

of the background of the TREAD Act and a

manufacturer’s reporting obligations prior to

the TREAD Act. On October 11, 2001, we

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) that would implement another

provision of the TREAD Act, adding Section

30166(l) to Title 49 (66 FR 51907).

Subsection (l) also applies to manufacturers

of motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment; it requires them to notify us of

defect campaigns that they conduct outside

the United States, or are ordered by a foreign

government to conduct abroad, on vehicles

and equipment identical or substantially

similar to those sold in the United States.

Readers are requested to review that NPRM

in parallel with the early warning NPRM to

ensure consistency between application and

definitions as we intend for each final rule

to become a subchapter of Part 579.

In response to the ANPRM, we received

comments from a variety of sources. Motor

vehicle manufacturers and associated trade

organizations who commented were Ford

Motor Company (Ford), Volvo Trucks North

America (Volvo), the Truck Manufacturers

Association (TMA), Blue Bird Body Co. (Blue

Bird), International Truck and Engine

Corporation (International Truck), Mack

Trucks, Inc. (Mack), DaimlerChrysler

66192 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1The term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ is a broad one. The

statutory definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ (49 U.S.C.

30102(a)(6)) has been the subject of numerous

interpretations since 1966.

Corporation (DaimlerChrysler), the

Association of International Automobile

Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), the Recreational

Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), HarleyDavidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson),

Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan),

Volkswagen of America, Inc. (for itself,

Volkswagen, AG and Audi AG)

(Volkswagen), the Truck Trailer

Manufacturers Association (TTMA),

American Honda Motor Company (Honda),

the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), the

National Automobile Dealers Association

(NADA), Fontaine Modification Company

(Fontaine), and the Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers (the Alliance). The tire

industry was represented by the Rubber

Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the

Bridgestone Corporation. Other motor vehicle

equipment manufacturers and associated

trade organizations who commented were the

Automotive Occupants Restraint Council

(AORC), TRW, Inc. (TRW), Atwood Mobile

Products (Atwood), the Battery Council

International, ArvinMeritor, Peterson

Manufacturing Company, the Motor and

Equipment Manufacturers Association

(MEMA) and the Original Equipment

Suppliers Association (OESA), both

supported by Eagle-Picher Industries, Breed

Technologies (Breed), Dana Corporation

(Dana), Pilkington North America, Inc.

(PNA), the Transportation Safety Equipment

Institute (TSEI), the Automotive Aftermarket

Industry Association (AAIA), Johnson

Controls, the Torrington Company, the

Specialty Equipment Manufacturers

Association (SEMA), the National Truck

Equipment Association (NTEA), Delphi

Automotive Systems, LLC (Delphi), Webb

Wheel Products, Inc. (Webb), Hella North

America, Inc. (Hella), Osram Sylvania,

Shepherd Hardware Products, LLC

(Shepherd), Valeo, Inc., Am-Safe Commercial

Products, Inc., and Harbour Industries. We

also received comments from Consumer

Union, Public Citizen, and Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates).

These comments have provided us with

numerous insights in developing this NPRM.

We plan to issue a final rule by the statutory

deadline, June 30, 2002, which will

incorporate the early warning reporting

elements specifically set forth in the TREAD

Act. In addition to these elements, under

Section 30166(m)(3)(B) we propose to require

the submission of additional information that

may assist in the identification of defects in

vehicles in the United States. This will

complete the first phase of our early warning

rulemaking. Consistent with Section

30166(m)(5), we will periodically review the

final rule; such review could result in

amendments after June 30, 2002.

III. Manufacturers That Would Be Covered

by the New Reporting Requirements

A. Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles

The TREAD Act provides for the agency to

require manufacturers of motor vehicles 1 to

submit information that may assist in the

identification of safety-related defects. We

must decide which manufacturers of motor

vehicles would be required to submit reports

under this rule, and whether different

reporting requirements should apply to

various categories of manufacturers. Section

30166(m)(3) does not exempt any

manufacturer of motor vehicles from its

coverage. On the other hand, it provides

substantial discretion to the agency. The

word ‘‘may’’ is used at several points in the

statute. In addition, the agency’s ability to

use the information submitted is a statutory

concern.

One of the threshold questions in this

rulemaking is whether the agency should

exercise its discretion to defer the imposition

of some or all potential early warning

reporting requirements on some classes of

manufacturers. The early warning regulation

would be a new regulation, and inevitably

the agency and regulated entities will face

some issues in implementing it. It would be

counterproductive to require the submission

of more information than we could

beneficially review or to impose

impracticable requirements, particularly on

small manufacturers. We have concluded

that we should phase in the early warning

reporting requirements and that, for the most

part, it would be appropriate to focus first on

larger volume manufacturers and on

information regarding incidents and

activities in the United States, as contrasted

to those occurring in foreign countries.

Vehicles produced in small quantities have

a smaller overall impact upon safety than

large production vehicles, as we have

frequently noted in providing temporary

exemptions from one of more of the Federal

motor vehicle safety standards under 49

U.S.C. 30113. Although we would not expect

the volume of reports from any individual

small volume manufacturer to be

overwhelming if we were to require

comprehensive reporting by smaller

manufacturers, there would be some burden

on them. More important, our interactions

with, and review of submissions by, the large

number of small manufacturers would divert

the agency’s resources from reports

submitted by high volume manufacturers

involving potential safety defects that could

affect a far greater number of vehicles and

thus have a greater impact on safety.

For the present time, we propose to

exclude from most of the reporting

requirements any vehicle manufacturer that

manufactures for sale, offers for sale, imports,

or sells, in the United States, fewer than 500

vehicles in the year of the reporting period,

or which has done so in the two calendar

years preceding the reporting period. We are

also proposing to exclude registered

importers (RIs) of vehicles not originally

manufactured to comply with Federal motor

vehicle safety standards from most of the

reporting requirements. RIs would not have

information that would be useful because

most are small, and those that are not import

vehicles on which we would generally

receive reports from assembling or importing

manufacturers. This exclusion would also

apply to many manufacturers of multistage

vehicles and alterers since most manufacture

or sell fewer than 500 vehicles annually.

However, these smaller volume

manufacturers would not be exempt from the

requirements, addressed below, to report to

us certain specified information regarding all

deaths occurring in the United States that are

identified in claims against the manufacturer

or in notices to in which it is alleged or

proven that a death was caused by a possible

defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle, together

with information on deaths occurring in

foreign countries that are identified in claims

against the manufacturer involving a vehicle

that is identical or substantially similar to a

vehicle that the manufacturer has offered for

sale in the United States. With respect to all

such reported deaths, manufacturers would

have to provide certain information regarding

the underlying incident, as described in

greater detail below. These manufacturers

would also have to provide copies of

documents related to customer satisfaction

campaigns, consumer advisories, recalls, and

other safety activities under proposed section

579.5.

For those motor vehicle manufacturers that

are not excluded from full reporting based on

low levels of sales in the United States, we

are proposing to establish separate reporting

requirements based on the category of vehicle

produced. We are proposing five categories of

vehicles: Light vehicles, medium-heavy

vehicles, buses, motorcycles and trailers.

Each category has components and systems

that distinguish it from the other four

categories, and which may develop safetyrelated problems unique to that category.

Therefore, we would require different

information regarding each category of

vehicle, which will help to reduce the

complexity and burdensomeness of the rule.

Under our proposal, light vehicles would

comprise any motor vehicle, except a bus,

trailer, or motorcycle, with a GVWR of 10,000

lbs. or less. Medium-heavy vehicles would

include trucks and multipurpose passenger

vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. Buses

(including school buses) and trailers would

be separately categorized regardless of

GVWR. Motorcycles would include any twoor three-wheeled vehicle meeting the

definition of motorcycle in 49 CFR 571.3(b).

We ask for comments on whether an

annual aggregate production, importation, or

sales of 500 vehicles in the United States is

an appropriate figure upon which to base this

distinction, whether a manufacturer’s

eligibility for these lesser reporting

requirements should be determined based

upon its production in the two calendar years

preceding this report or whether a shorter,

longer, or different period would be

appropriate, and whether small volume

vehicle manufacturers should be required to

provide other data and information in

addition to that relating to deaths. Finally,

we are interested in having comments on our

proposed five categories of vehicles. For

instance, we are not proposing a separate

category of ‘‘medium vehicle’’ because it

seems to us that the components and systems

of such vehicles would be those for which

reporting would be required are those with

which either light or medium-heavy vehicles

are equipped.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66193

B. Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle

Equipment

The TREAD Act also provides for the

agency to require manufacturers of motor

vehicle equipment to submit early warning

reporting information that may assist in the

identification of safety-related defects.

‘‘Motor vehicle equipment’’ is defined in 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(7), and consists of ‘‘original

equipment’’ (OE) and ‘‘replacement

equipment.’’ These two terms are currently

defined in 49 CFR 579.4. We are not

changing the definitions, but we are revising

the language in new section 579.4(c) to make

it more understandable.

1. Original Equipment

There are approximately 10,000 to 14,000

individual items of OE in a contemporary

passenger car. Some are fabricated by the

vehicle manufacturer, some by parts

manufacturers, and some parts are

incorporated into systems or modules

assembled by various suppliers. 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. Many of these units are assembled by

a supplier, often with components from

various manufacturers. Each of these

fabricators or assemblers is also a

manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

When a component or module installed as

OE on a vehicle fails, generally vehicle

owners will complain or file a claim with the

entity that has manufactured and warranted

the vehicle, rather than the assembler of the

module or the manufacturers of the

individual parts, who in most instances are

unknown to the vehicle owner. In view of

this, the Alliance, Ford, and AIAM

specifically supported exclusion of OE

manufacturers (OEMs) from early warning

reporting requirements in their comments on

the ANPRM.

OEMs, however, are not currently exempt

from defect reporting requirements. Pursuant

to 49 CFR 573.3(f), if an OEM sells an item

of OE to more than one vehicle manufacturer

and a defect or noncompliance is decided to

exist in that OE, the OEM is required to

notify us (as are the manufacturers of the

vehicles in which the OE is installed). If the

defective OE is used in the vehicles of only

one vehicle manufacturer, the OEM may

notify us on behalf of both itself and the

vehicle manufacturer (Section 573.3(e))(in

either case, the OEM may also be the party

remedying the safety defect or the

noncompliance). Thus, OEMs can and do

make determinations that OE contains safetyrelated defects, and they will have some

information of the type that the TREAD Act

authorizes us to require, such as claims

alleging failures of their products. Thus, we

do not propose to totally exempt OEMs from

early warning reporting.

We have tentatively decided that most

meaningful information about possible

defects is more likely to come to the attention

of the vehicle manufacturer earlier than it

would to the OEM. However, we want to be

certain that we obtain information regarding

deaths attributed to defects in OE.

Accordingly, at this time, we are proposing

that OEMs be exempt from all reporting

requirements regarding OE they manufacture,

except for reporting to us regarding deaths in

the same manner as small volume vehicle

manufacturers, discussed above. Of course,

the vehicle manufacturer would be required

to report fully in its capacity as a vehicle

manufacturer, even if the vehicle

manufacturer believed that the problem was

the responsibility of the OEM.

2. Replacement Equipment, Including Tires

Replacement equipment comprises an even

broader universe of parts than OE. Under

both current 49 CFR 579.4(b) and proposed

579.4(c), it includes all motor vehicle

equipment other than OE. Not only does the

term have the literal meaning of equipment

that is intended to replace OE, it also

includes accessory equipment and ‘‘offvehicle equipment’’ that is not part of a

motor vehicle, such as retroreflective

motorcycle rider apparel and child restraints.

Manufacturers of replacement equipment are

within the scope of the early warning

reporting provisions of the statute.

Some replacement equipment items are

critically important from a safety perspective,

while others have less of a safety nexus.

Tires, of course, are essential items of motor

vehicle equipment, and tire manufacturers

have the duty to conduct notification and

remedy campaigns and to address defective

or noncompliant tires, whether sold in the

aftermarket or installed on new vehicles (see

current 49 CFR 579.5(b)). Tire brand name

owners (e.g., house brands) are also

considered manufacturers (49 U.S.C.

30102(b)(1)(E)) and have the same defect and

noncompliance reporting requirements as the

actual fabricators of the tires (49 CFR

573.3(d)). Child restraints are also critical

safety items. Therefore, we are proposing that

all tire manufacturers, tire brand name

owners, and manufacturers of child restraints

would be required to provide the full range

of information and documents proposed.

There are relatively few manufacturers of

child restraints and tires, and most are large

businesses.

There is a large number of manufacturers

of other types of replacement equipment.

Much of this equipment is imported by or for

auto parts houses such as J.C. Whitney, or

general merchandisers such as K–Mart. An

importer for resale is considered a

manufacturer under the statute. See 49 U.S.C.

30102(a)(5)(B). A large universe of entities

would be subject to multiple requirements if

we were to fully apply early warning

reporting requirements to all fabricators and

importers of replacement equipment.

Therefore, at least for purposes of this

initial rulemaking, we are proposing that, as

with lower volume vehicle manufacturers

and original equipment manufacturers,

manufacturers of other types of replacement

equipment would only be required to report

to us claims and notices regarding deaths

allegedly due to defects in their products.

However, we may revisit these limitations

under our periodic review of the rule.

C. Foreign Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles

and Equipment

As defined before the enactment of the

TREAD Act, a manufacturer is defined as ‘‘a

person manufacturing or assembling motor

vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or

importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle

equipment for resale’’ (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)).

Foreign manufacturers offering vehicles or

vehicle equipment for import must designate

an agent on whom service may be made (49

U.S.C. 30164).

In its defect and noncompliance reporting

regulations, the agency has addressed the

question of who may file a defect or

noncompliance report related to an imported

item. Under 49 CFR 573.3(b), in the case of

vehicles or equipment imported into the

United States, a defect or noncompliance

report may be filed by either the fabricating

manufacturer or the importer of the vehicle

or equipment. Defect and noncompliance

reports covering vehicles manufactured

outside of the United States have generally

been submitted by the importer of the

vehicles, which is usually a subsidiary of a

foreign parent corporation (e.g., defects in

vehicles made in Japan by Honda Motor Co.

Ltd. are reported by American Honda Motor

Co., Inc., even if the vehicle was certified by

Honda Motor Co. Ltd.).

The TREAD Act expanded manufacturers’

responsibilities with respect to foreign events

and activities. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(l) and

(m). It is evident that the TREAD Act has

extraterritorial effect. In its comments on the

ANPRM, the Alliance recognized that the

TREAD Act was clearly written by Congress

to apply to persons and activities outside of

the United States and it is therefore a clear

assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the

United States (Alliance comment,

Attachment 10, p. 9). The Alliance went on

to state that the early warning rule could

reasonably require reports from foreign

companies manufacturing vehicles for sale in

the United States as long as the required

reports relate to issues that could arise in

those vehicles (p. 11). Today’s proposal is

consistent with that conclusion. Foreign

entities would be required to provide the

same information as we would require for

domestic manufacturers, but as explained in

further detail below, only with respect to

vehicles and equipment that they sell in the

United States, and to incidents involving

death outside the United States that involve

identical or substantially similar vehicles or

equipment. To assure that we receive

information initially provided to various

foreign entities, including affiliates of foreign

parent corporations, we propose to apply Part

579 to all vehicle and equipment

manufacturers ‘‘with respect to all vehicles

and equipment that have been offered for

sale, sold, or leased by the manufacturer, any

parent corporation of the manufacturer, any

subsidiary or affiliate of the manufacturer, or

any subsidiary or affiliate of any parent

corporation of the manufacturer.’’

This leaves the question of who must and

who may report. In view of the definition of

manufacturer and in further view of the

specific provisions of Section 30166(m), we

believe that the agency has authority to

require a report from the foreign entity that

66194 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

maintains the information, from the

fabricating manufacturer, and from the

importer of the vehicle or equipment.

However, we are proposing to apply the

reporting requirements for early warning in

the same manner as we currently utilize for

reporting noncompliance and defect

determinations to NHTSA under Part 573,

and that we have proposed for reporting of

safety recalls and other safety campaigns in

foreign countries pursuant to Section 3(a) of

the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(l). See 66

FR 51905 et seq., October 11, 2001. Thus,

under today’s proposal, the report must be

filed by either the fabricating manufacturer or

by the importer of the vehicle or equipment.

This is consistent with current reporting of

safety defects and noncompliances. See 49

CFR 573.3(b).

A multinational corporation must ensure

that all relevant information on matters for

which reports are required throughout the

world are made available to whatever entity

makes those reports so that its designated

entity timely provides the information to

NHTSA. Thus, it would be a violation of law

for a foreign fabricating manufacturer to

designate its U.S. importer as its reporting

entity, and then fail to assure that it is

provided with the information that must be

reported under this rule. Such manufacturers

will have to adopt and implement practices

to assure the proper flow of relevant

information.

D. Other Representatives of Manufacturers

Most of the information covered by this

rule would be provided directly to the entity

(usually a corporation) that assembles or

imports vehicles or equipment. However,

some information, such as claims-related

documents or field reports, might be initially

received by affiliates or other representatives

of manufacturers, such as their registered

agents and outside counsel. Consistent with

the thrust of the early warning statutory

provisions, we are proposing to deem

information received by these entities to be

in the possession of the manufacturer, and

thus to require each manufacturer to ensure

that entities that it has the ability to control

furnish it with relevant early warning

information so that the manufacturer may

make a full and timely report to NHTSA.

However, we are not proposing to require

such an affiliate or representative to report

directly to NHTSA. We also ask for

comments on our proposed applicability of

this regulation to parents, affiliates, and

subsidiaries of vehicle manufacturers.

In general, motor vehicle dealers are

independent businesses (this is not the case

with respect to some tire dealers). To the

extent that they are independent, claims and

other information received by dealers would

not automatically be considered in the

possession of the manufacturer. However, if

the dealer were to convey such information

to any employee or other representative of a

manufacturer, the manufacturer would be

deemed to have possession of it upon receipt.

IV. Information That Would Be Reported

Section 30166(m)(3)(A) directs NHTSA to

require manufacturers to report information

which concerns 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,’’ and 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)(B) authorizes us to require

manufacturers to report other ‘‘such

information’’ that may assist in the

identification of safety defects. Finally,

Section 30166(m)(3)(C) requires reporting of

incidents, of which the manufacturer

receives actual notice, involving deaths or

serious injuries which are alleged or proven

to have been caused by a possible defect in

the manufacturer’s vehicle or equipment in

the United States, or in a foreign country

when the possible defect is in a vehicle or

equipment identical or substantially similar

to that sold in the United States.

A. Production Information

For each reporting period, we would

require manufacturers of vehicles whose

sales, production, or importation for sale in

the United States is 500 or more, and

manufacturers of child restraint systems and

tires, to provide information on the volume

of production of their products. Production

numbers are needed because the agency’s

trend analyses frequently are normalized to

the number of claims, complaints, etc. per

unit of production. These manufacturers

would submit the following information with

respect to each model and model year of

vehicle manufactured in the calendar year of

the reporting period and the nine model

years prior to the model year of the reporting

period, including models no longer in

production: the manufacturer’s name, the

quarterly reporting period, the make, the

model, the model year, the current model

year production to the end of the reporting

period, and the total model year production

for all model years for which production has

ceased. For all models of vehicles that are

manufactured with more than one type of

fuel system, the information required by this

subsection would be reported separately for

gasoline-powered vehicles and for nongasoline-powered vehicles. For mediumheavy vehicles, there would be further

subcategorization by service brake system

(e.g., hydraulic, air).

We recognize that manufacturers of child

restraint systems and tires generally do not

specify ‘‘model years’’ for their products. For

purposes of this rule, to avoid confusion, we

are defining the term ‘‘model year’’ as the

year that the item of equipment was

manufactured.

Figure 1, below, represents a pro-forma

example of how production information

would be reported by a manufacturer of

medium-heavy trucks, using an electronic

spreadsheet. For each model/model year,

there would be multiple rows if the mediumheavy truck model was produced with

different types of fuel or brake systems.

Production Information

MEDIUM-HEAVY TRUCKS

Reporting Period:

Manufacturer:

Make Model Model year Production Fuel system type

(see below)

Brake system type

(see below)

2003 #

2002 #

2001 #

2000 #

1999 #

1998 #

1997 #

1996 #

1995 #

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66195

Make Model Model year Production Fuel system type

(see below)

Brake system type

(see below)

1994 #

Fuel System Type:

a. Gasoline

b. Diesel

c. Other

Brake System Type:

a. Hydraulic

b. Air

c. Other than hydraulic or air

Figure 1

We ask for comments on this suggested

format for providing production information

by electronic means.

B. Claim: A Proposed Definition

Section 30166(m)(3)(A) refers to claims

data. The ANPRM stated that, in order to

achieve the goals of the TREAD Act, the term

‘‘claim’’ must be construed broadly and

provided some examples.

We have researched the definition of claim,

considered comments received in response to

the ANPRM, and considered our

investigatory experience with requests for

claims information.

Case law provides interpretations of the

word ‘‘claim’’ in various contexts. In a

Federal law context, ‘‘ ‘claim’ is something

more than mere notice of an accident and an

injury. The term ‘claim’ contemplates, in

general usage, a demand for payment or

relief.’’ Avril v. U.S., 461 F.2d 1090, 1091

(9th Cir. 1972). See also, Conoco, Inc. v.

United States, 39 Env’t. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1541

(N.D. La. 1994)(written request for

compensation for damages or costs); 31

U.S.C. 3729(c) (claim involves request for

demand for money or property).

State case law also provides a definition of

the word ‘‘claim.’’ For example, Fireman’s

Fund Insurance Co. v. The Superior Court of

Los Angeles County, 65 Cal. App. 4th 1205,

1216 (1997), noted that a claim encompasses

more than a suit:

‘‘claim’’ can be any number of things, none

of which rise to the formal level of a suit—

it may be a demand for payment

communicated in a letter, or a document

filed to protect an injured party’s right to sue

a governmental entity, or the document used

to initiate a wide variety of administrative

proceedings.

Other state law cases have further

addressed the meaning of ‘‘claim.’’

Safeco Surplus Lines Co. v. Employer’s

Reinsurance Corp., 11 Cal. App. 4th

1403, 1407 (1992), held that a ‘‘claim’’

is ‘‘the assertion, demand or challenge

of something as a right; the assertion of

a liability to the party making it do some

service or pay a sum of money.’’

Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Construction

Co., 136 Cal. App. 3d 673, 677 (1982),

stated that ‘‘a claim both in its ordinary

meaning and as interpreted by the

courts, is a demand for something as a

right, or as due and a formal lawsuit is

not required before a claim is made.’’

Commenters provided a variety of

views on a possible definition of a

claim. The Alliance offered this

definition to which Ford and Delphi

agreed:

A claim or incident involving serious injury

or death is any written demand, complaint,

subrogation request or lawsuit received by a

manufacturer from or on behalf of the person

seriously or fatally injured that (a) involves

‘‘serious injury,’’ as further defined, or death,

(b) alleges that a product defect was, at least

in part, a contributing cause of the serious or

fatal injury, and (c) contains sufficient

information to identify the motor vehicle or

item of motor vehicle equipment involved.

DaimlerChrysler would add that a

‘‘claim’’ includes a formal request for

compensation. International Truck

stated that the term should exclude

warranty claims, which International

considers to be dealer or customer

submissions for reimbursement on parts

and labor. TRW also pointed out the

difference between claims for deaths

and injuries and those submitted under

warranties. TRW offered a definition for

claims in the personal injury context as

a written demand for compensation against

the manufacturer or written notice to the

manufacturer of litigation where

compensation is sought from the

manufacturer and it is expressly alleged that

death or serious personal injury has been

caused by a defect in a specified vehicle and/

or in specified motor vehicle equipment of

the manufacturer.

Mack Truck stated that claims should

be defined as verified written

communications transmitted to the

manufacturer, requesting compensation

for property damage, death or personal

injury allegedly caused by safety-related

defects in a specified product of the

manufacturer. Volvo Trucks would

restrict ‘‘claim’’ to ‘‘any lawsuit filed

requesting compensation for personal

injuries or property damage that is the

result of an alleged safety-related defect

in a motor vehicle’’ and did not include

subrogation claims. It would also

exclude ‘‘any request for consequential

damages that are the result of a

warrantable repair or an alleged defect

that does not relate to safety.’’

We have considered the case law and

the comments. We believe that the

definition of claim should be broad, and

meet our needs under the TREAD Act.

We propose the following definition for

claim:

A written request or demand for relief,

including money or other compensation,

assumption of expenditures, or equitable

relief, related to a motor vehicle crash,

accident, the failure of a component or

system of a vehicle or an item of motor

vehicle equipment, or a fire. Claim includes

but is not limited to a demand in the absence

of a lawsuit, a complaint initiating a lawsuit,

an assertion or notice of litigation, a

settlement, covenant not to sue or release of

liability in the absence of a written demand,

and a subrogation request. A claim exists

regardless of any denial or refusal to pay it,

and regardless of whether it has been settled

or resolved in the manufacturer’s favor. The

existence of a claim may not be conditioned

on the receipt of anything beyond the

document stating a claim.

The proposed definition includes

many of the elements addressed above

by commenters. We do not address, as

did the Alliance and others, what the

claim must involve, allege or contain, as

those matters are not parts of a

definition of a claim. They are

addressed below. However, we do refer

to a motor vehicle crash, accident,

component or system failure, and a fire,

as these are the events that have safety

implications. The definition would

exclude, for example, events with which

the rule is not concerned, such as

injuries in manufacturers’ factories.

Warranties are addressed separately

below. The last two sentences of our

proposal are designed to assure that all

relevant claims are provided to us. This

would preclude attempts, similar to

those that have been made by some

manufacturers in our investigations, to

evade reporting claims by conditioning

them on receipt of parts, or their own

assessments of the merits of claims.

66196 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

C. Notice: A Proposed Definition

Section 30166(m)(3)(C) requires that

the rule include the reporting of ‘‘all

incidents of which the manufacturer

receives actual notice,’’ involving

fatalities or serious injuries that are

alleged or proven to have been caused

by a possible defect in its products. The

term ‘‘actual notice’’ is extremely broad.

Nonetheless, to avoid impractical

requirements, we are proposing only to

require reporting of incidents of which

a manufacturer receives or obtains

documentation (e.g., in written or

electronic formats). Therefore, in this

context, we would define ‘‘notice’’ of an

applicable incident to mean ‘‘a

document received by or prepared by a

manufacturer that does not include a

demand for relief.’’ This would include,

for example, a letter advising a

manufacturer of a crash in which there

was a death or injury and an allegation

of a defect in the vehicle where there

was no claim for monetary or other

relief. It would also include police

accident reports transmitted to a

manufacturer regarding deaths or

injuries in which a causative factor was

stated to be a performance failure of the

vehicle or equipment, but would not

include reports where no defect in, or

failure of, the vehicle or equipment was

indicated (e.g., a crash due to the driver

losing control, with no system or

equipment failure reported). Newspaper

articles or other media reports would

not, in themselves, constitute ‘‘notice,’’

unless either they were provided to the

manufacturer, such as by an owner, or

actions taken by the manufacturer

reflect that it had received notice of the

incidents in question.

D. Identification of the Product in

Claims and Notices

To be covered by these early warning

requirements, a claim or notice, as well

as other matters addressed below,

would have to identify the vehicle or

equipment item involved in at least a

minimal way. Otherwise, it would not

be possible to identify what vehicle or

equipment was involved, and the

information would not help us to

identify potential defects. In the context

of identification, we propose to use the

term ‘‘minimal specificity’’ and define it

to mean ‘‘(a) for a vehicle, the make,

model and model year, (b) for a child

seat, the model (either the model name

or model number), (c) for a tire, the

model and size, and (d) for other motor

vehicle equipment, if there is a model

or family of models, the model name or

model number.’’

With regard to claims, notices, and

other reporting obligations discussed

below, for vehicles, we would define

‘‘model’’ to mean ‘‘a name that a

manufacturer applies to a family of

vehicles within a make which have a

degree of commonality in construction,

such as body, chassis or cab type.’’

‘‘Make,’’ in turn, would mean ‘‘a name

that a manufacturer applies to a group

of vehicles.’’ The proposed definition of

‘‘make’’ is the identical definition of

‘‘make’’ used in 49 CFR Part 565,

Vehicle Identification Number

Requirements (see section 565.3(g)). The

proposed definition of ‘‘model’’ is the

definition the VIN regulation uses for

‘‘[vehicle] line’’ (see section 565.3(f)).

Our objective is to obtain reports by

commonly-understood designations. For

example, with regard to the General

Motors S–10 platform, we would expect

to receive separate reports for pickup

trucks and sport-utility vehicles, but the

total for each would include both

Chevrolet and GMC nameplates. But we

would expect C and K platform pickup

trucks to be reported together (the total

including both Chevrolet and GMC

nameplates) as they are both pickup

trucks and the relevant difference (2- vs.

4-wheel drive) appears to be

insignificant for early warning

reporting. As another example, with

regard to Ford pickup trucks, we expect

separate reports for the F–150 and F–

250, but, within each designation, do

not want separate reports for two-door

and four-door versions, or versions with

different engines or transmissions. We

request comments on this approach and

how our definition may achieve it.

We would define ‘‘model year’’ for

this and all other early warning

reporting purposes to include the year

that a vehicle was manufactured if the

manufacturer has not assigned a model

year to the vehicle covered by the

report.

For equipment, ‘‘model’’ would mean

the name that its manufacturer uses to

designate it. ‘‘Model year’’ would mean

the calendar year in which the

equipment was manufactured.

We ask for comments on the clarity

and inclusiveness of these proposed

definitions.

If an otherwise covered claim or

notice as initially received by the

manufacturer does not identify the

allegedly defective product with

minimal specificity but a subsequent

communication does, it would become

a covered claim or notice at the time of

the subsequent communication, and the

manufacturer would be required to

report it in its next report to NHTSA.

E. Claims and Notices Involving Death

1. Whether to Define Death

We are not proposing to define death

or fatality because we do not believe

that it is necessary or appropriate to do

so. Our reason is simple: the subject

matter of this category of information is

claims involving deaths and notices of

incidents involving fatalities. Proof of

death is not necessary, nor does it

matter when death occurred.

2. Claims Involving Death

We propose that every manufacturer

be required to report certain information

about each incident involving a death

identified in claims it has received

during each reporting period, if the

claim identifies the product with

minimal specificity. This would apply

to claims regarding fatal incidents in

foreign countries as well as the United

States. Reports of claims involving

death would be in electronic form, as

we discuss later.

3. Notices Involving Death

We are also proposing that

manufacturers be required to report

similar information about each incident

involving a death that occurred in the

United States that is identified in a

notice (as defined above) in which it is

alleged or proven that the fatality was

caused in whole or in part by a possible

defect in such manufacturer’s vehicle or

equipment, received during each

reporting period, if the product is

identified with minimal specificity.

Information about such deaths would be

combined with information about

claims of death on the same report.

4. Information About Deaths

The information about deaths to be

reported would contain, for each

incident, model and model year of the

vehicle or equipment, the date of the

incident, the number of deaths that

occurred in the incident, the name of

the State in the United States or the

specific foreign country in which the

incident occurred, and the identification

of each component or system that

allegedly contributed to the incident or

the death reported.

We are proposing that manufacturers

who sell 500 or more vehicles annually

in the United States and manufacturers

of tires (except as to low production

tires) and child restraint systems

identify systems or components

involved in the same manner as those

used for their other reporting

obligations. These are discussed below.

Vehicle manufacturers who sell fewer

than 500 vehicles annually in the

United States would also identify

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66197

systems or components involved in the

same manner. However, given the large

and varying universe of motor vehicle

equipment, manufacturers of original

equipment and of replacement

equipment other than tires and child

restraint systems would describe the

systems or components involved in

their own words, based on the claim or

notice. We are proposing this approach

to make reporting by these

manufacturers simpler than it would

otherwise be if they had to use

designations with which they are not

familiar.

For claims and notices, if the

component or system is not identified,

the manufacturer would enter

‘‘unknown.’’ If the manufacturer was

not aware of one or more of the required

items of information at the time the

report was submitted, it would have to

provide the information in a further

report covering the reporting period in

which it was received.

F. Claims and Notices Involving Injuries

1. The Difficulties of Defining ‘‘Serious

Injury’’

The issue of whether to define

‘‘serious injury,’’ and if so, how, has

proven to be one of the more

challenging tasks in the development of

this NPRM.

We have considered several

approaches. Originally, it seemed to us

that it might be appropriate to use the

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) system.

The AIS system was developed by a

joint Committee on Injury Scaling,

comprised of representatives from the

American Medical Association,

Association for the Advancement of

Automotive Medicine, and the Society

of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The AIS

system ranks the severity of injuries

numerically from 1 to 7. The injuries

that are recorded are those that occur to

the head, face, neck, thorax, abdomen,

spine, upper and lower extremities,

external/skin, burns and other trauma.

In the ANPRM, the agency sought input

on the potential use of the AIS system.

The commenters had many disparate

views.

In its comments, the Alliance labeled

the AIS system unworkable for this

purpose due to the highly sophisticated

coding and complex nature of

identifying claims. The Alliance noted

that each manufacturer would need to

have a staff of thoroughly trained

personnel who understand the entire

system. The manufacturer would have

to train its responsible personnel to

understand basic medicine and medical

terms and to use the AIS coding system,

which is not a simple task. There is a

lengthy manual, and the Association for

the Advancement of Automotive

Medicine offers a two-day course for

injury scaling according to the AIS. The

course is designed for trauma nurses,

registrars, physicians, hospital records

personnel, and researchers who are

responsible for injury databases. A

general knowledge of anatomy is

required before taking the class.

Another issue with using the AIS

system is the amount of information

required to determine the actual injury

level. A manufacturer may never have

enough information to properly code an

injury according to the AIS system.

Many claims and notices received by a

manufacturer will allege an injury but

contain insufficient information for AIS

coding. In the absence of information

demonstrating that the injury in

question reached whatever threshold

AIS level might be selected, a

manufacturer would be justified in not

reporting the incident, which could

result in substantial under-reporting.

In addition, the AIS system

necessarily involves subjective

judgments. This could introduce error

and inconsistency. Moreover, the

manufacturers have stated that they are

reluctant to interpret medical records.

Another concern is universal

administration. The AIS system is

prevalent in some professional circles in

the United States, but many

manufacturers indicated that the AIS

system is not utilized outside the U.S.

This may cause confusion when

translating or reviewing foreign claims,

especially if there is a different

reporting system for injuries in foreign

countries. Similarly, while most major

vehicle manufacturers probably have

employees who are familiar with it, the

AIS system may not be utilized by many

smaller manufacturers. Many smaller

manufacturers commented that they

were unaware of the AIS or believed

that using it as a determinant of serious

injury would be unworkable. We do not

believe that it would be appropriate to

specify different reporting criteria for

different industry segments.

Nissan diverged from most

manufacturers and supported a system

similar to the AIS system for defining

serious injuries, but sought a simplified,

flexible system. Nissan suggested that

the government and the industry create

a joint task force to develop a table

based upon the AIS system that would

allow the ranking of injuries to define

serious injury. Similar to Nissan, AIAM

suggested that the AIS system needed to

be simplified to allow manufacturers to

easily classify an injury as serious or not

serious. We do not know whether this

approach would be workable. However,

even if it were, there is insufficient time

to develop such a system within the

statutory deadline for the early warning

rule.

CU and Advocates both supported the

use of the AIS system as a triggering

device. However, both commenters

stated that if a claim alleges an injury

and it cannot be determined if it

involves a serious injury, the claim

should be reported to the agency.

We also considered basing the

definition of serious injury for purposes

of the early warning rule on certain

statutory and regulatory definitions.

RMA suggested the definition from 18

U.S.C. 1365(g)(3). In that section,

serious injury is defined as: ‘‘a bodily

injury which involves (a) a substantial

risk of death; (b) extreme physical pain;

(c) protracted and obvious

disfigurement; or (d) protracted loss or

impairment of the function of a bodily

member, organ or mental faculty.’’ The

MIC suggested that we define serious

injury similarly to the Consumer

Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC)

definition of ‘‘grievous bodily injury’’

(16 CFR 1116.2 (b)). That section states,

in pertinent part:

(b) Grievous bodily injury includes, but is not

limited to, any of the following categories of

injury:

(1) Mutilation or disfigurement.

Disfigurement includes permanent facial

disfigurement or non-facial scarring that

results in permanent restriction of motion;

(2) Dismemberment or amputation, including

the removal of a limb or other appendage of

the body;

(3) The loss of important bodily functions or

debilitating internal disorder. These terms

include:

(i) Permanent injury to a vital organ, in any

degree;

(ii) The total loss or loss of use of any

internal organ,

(iii) Injury, temporary or permanent, to more

than one internal organ;

(iv) Permanent brain injury to any degree or

with any residual disorder (e.g. epilepsy),

and brain or brain stem injury including

coma and spinal cord injuries;

(v) Paraplegia, quadriplegia, or permanent

paralysis or paresis, to any degree;

(vi) Blindness or permanent loss, to any

degree, of vision, hearing, or sense of smell,

touch, or taste;

(vii) Any back or neck injury requiring

surgery, or any injury requiring joint

replacement or any form of prosthesis, or;

(viii) Compound fracture of any long bone, or

multiple fractures that result in permanent or

significant temporary loss of the function of

an important part of the body;

(4) Injuries likely to require extended

hospitalization, including any injury

requiring 30 or more consecutive days of inpatient care in an acute care facility, or 60

or more consecutive days of in-patient care

in a rehabilitation facility;

(5) Severe burns, including any third degree

burn over ten percent of the body or more,

66198 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

or any second degree burn over thirty percent

of the body or more;

(6) Severe electric shock, including

ventricular fibrillation, neurological damage,

or thermal damage to internal tissue caused

by electric shock.

(7) Other grievous injuries, including any

allegation of traumatically induced disease.

In the context of early warning

reporting, these definitions suffer from

many of the same deficiencies as

identified above regarding the AIS

system. Reporting would ultimately

depend on highly subjective

determinations, including the

assessment of terms like ‘‘substantial,’’

‘‘extreme,’’ and ‘‘protracted.’’ This could

lead to inconsistencies, under-reporting,

and unwarranted delays. In addition,

many categories, such as ‘‘substantial

risk of death’’ and ‘‘extreme physical

pain,’’ would need to be further defined.

We also considered using a surrogate

for serious injury, such as

hospitalization. The Alliance, which, as

noted above, opposed technical

assessments of injuries under the AIS

system, took this approach. The

Alliance would define serious injury as

any non-fatal injury resulting in an

overnight hospital admission (but not

including emergency room treatment if

the person was treated and released).

The Alliance asserts that it is simple

and is easier to administer than the AIS

system. This is true; the Alliance’s

definition is simple and does not

require sophisticated training of

reporting personnel. Also, the definition

provides an objective criterion. The

reporting trigger, the hospitalization,

would not need to be interpreted by the

manufacturer to determine if it meets

another standard.

On the other hand, the Alliance’s

definition is not broad enough. The

definition only includes injuries that

result in an overnight admission into a

hospital, but excludes significant

emergency room treatment. For the

purposes of early warning, in our view,

this is not sufficient. Due to various

factors, such as health care management

practices and evolving medical

approaches, individuals with injuries

that most people would view as serious

are often treated in an emergency room

but not actually admitted to a hospital.

For example, under the Alliance’s

definition, a person who fractured a leg

might not be considered to have

incurred a serious injury, since he or

she might not be admitted into the

hospital for an overnight stay. Yet we

believe that most people would agree

that a fractured leg would be considered

a serious injury. In addition, for various

reasons, some seriously injured people,

such as the poor and people in various

religious groups, might not be admitted

into a ‘‘hospital.’’ Most important, it is

likely that most claims, and possibly

even lawsuits, will not specifically state

whether or not there was a hospital stay.

Thus, many serious injuries that

involved hospitalization would not be

reported under this definition.

A difficulty that would exist under

any definition of serious injury is the

effort that would be needed to monitor

the progress of claims to see if a claim

that initially did not allege an injury

that satisfied the definition was

amended or supplemented such that the

injury was serious. The Alliance

asserted that constant monitoring of

claims is not feasible and would not

further the goals of the early warning

provisions. The Alliance further

commented that the burden should not

be on the manufacturer to determine if

a claim involves a serious injury. We

disagree with the Alliance’s assertion

that follow up review under such a

scenario would not further the goals of

early warning. Nonetheless, we

recognize that such efforts would

impose significant additional burdens

on manufacturers.

2. Reporting of Incidents in Which

Persons Were Injured, Based on Claims

and Notices

In view of the substantial problems

associated with defining ‘‘serious

injury,’’ for purposes of early warning

reporting we are proposing to require

certain categories of manufacturers to

report each incident in which persons

are injured in the United States that is

identified in a claim or notice alleging

or proving that the injury was caused by

a possible defect in the manufacturer’s

product, if the claim or notice identifies

the product with minimal specificity.

For these manufacturers, the report

would be combined with the reporting

of incidents involving fatalities. This

would limit the number of reports and

avoid duplication that could be

associated with separate reports of

deaths and injuries stemming from the

same incident.

We recognize that Sections

30166(m)(3)(A) and (C) refer to ‘‘serious

injuries.’’ Nevertheless, we are

authorized to require reporting of claims

about, and notices of, all injuries by

Section 30166(m)(3)(B) which provides:

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 * * * to report, periodically

or upon request of the Secretary, such

information as the Secretary may request.

It is evident that information about

injuries caused by defects in vehicles

and equipment will ‘‘assist in the

identification of defects related to

safety.’’ Often, the gravity of an injury

does not help determine whether a

vehicle or equipment is defective, since

the fact that a possible defect led to a

crash is generally more relevant than the

degree of injury experienced by a

vehicle occupant in the crash. Thus,

limiting reporting to serious injuries

would not better lead to the discovery

of defect trends. By requiring all claims

and notices of injury to be reported, we

would increase the robustness of the

data base on which we could analyze

whether a possible defect trend existed.

Thus, such a requirement is authorized

by Section 30166(m)(3)(B), and satisfies

the agency’s obligations under Sections

30166(m)(3)(A) and (C).

This proposed requirement avoids the

operational difficulties described above

associated with any attempt to develop

a universal, objective definition of

‘‘serious’’ injuries. The decision about

whether an incident involving an injury

must be reported could be made on the

basis of the limited information that

would be expected in a claim or a notice

of a covered incident, without requiring

complicated coding efforts, or awaiting

detailed information about the specifics

of the injury or the extent of

hospitalization. Thus, it would reduce

delays that could turn ‘‘early warning’’

into ‘‘late warning.’’

There are other benefits to this

approach. Because manufacturers would

not have to determine if the alleged

injury met one or more potentially

complex criteria for seriousness of an

injury as provided under some

proposals, this approach would

eliminate the need for subjective

determinations, and thus address the

concern of manufacturers that their

decisions could be second-guessed.

Although the incidents that would be

reported in which persons were injured

would be greater than under a more

limited definition of ‘‘serious injury,’’

this approach would actually reduce the

burden on manufacturers. They would

not need specialized or highly trained

staffs to make decisions about

‘‘seriousness.’’ As importantly, the need

to monitor and repeatedly review

incoming information to reassess

whether an injury was ‘‘serious’’ would

be minimized, if not eliminated. Also,

most manufacturers would not have to

significantly restructure their existing

database systems to comply with this

reporting requirement, since most, if not

all, manufacturers keep a record of

claims.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66199

We have considered the consequence

upon NHTSA of receiving, organizing,

and analyzing this information. The

Alliance has raised the specter that

agency would be flooded with a

tremendous amount of data, even if it

was submitted in electronic form,

stating that there are over 3.2 million

injuries per year as a result of 6.3

million police-reported crashes. The

Alliance has overstated the burden on

NHTSA. The vast majority of those

crashes and injuries do not result in

claims against manufacturers, and do

not involve alleged defects. In fact, the

Alliance’s supplemental comments

noted that only 9,200 claims alleging

death or injury were filed against their

manufacturer members and two other

manufacturers in the United States in

2000. Also, NHTSA would not be

overwhelmed because, as discussed

below, only a limited amount of

information involving injury-producing

incidents would be reported, as opposed

to copies of the underlying claims or

notices themselves.

We would require those

manufacturers that must report

information about injuries to provide

the same information as required with

respect to incidents involving deaths. If

an incident involved both deaths and

injuries, it would only be reported once,

with both the number of deaths and the

number of injuries specified.

G. Other Possible Conditions on

Reporting of Deaths and Injuries

Some commenters suggested that, to

be covered under the reporting

provisions, a claim or notice must also

specifically allege that the fatality or

injury was caused by a possible defect.

The allegation of a defect is not

statutorily required under Section

30166(m)(3)(A) or (B). Moreover, such a

limitation would lead to underreporting. In a lawsuit, which is one

type of a claim, a defect need not be

alleged if the pleading requirements of

the relevant jurisdiction do not require

such an averment. For example, in some

states such as California, the claim/

pleading requirements for complaints

do not require the plaintiff to allege the

existence of a defect. Moreover, with

respect to claims, the assertion of a

defect is implicit, since ordinarily there

would otherwise be no reason to make

the claim. Therefore, we are proposing

that, for early warning reporting

purposes, a claim need not specifically

allege or describe a defect. It is enough

if the claim contains information

indicating that a death or injury has

allegedly occurred, and it is alleged or

proven that the manufacturer’s product

is responsible.

Different considerations apply to

those incidents of which the

manufacturer receives notice that does

not amount to a claim, since only

incidents in which a defect is alleged or

proven are to be reported under Section

30166(m)(3)(C). Thus, for such

incidents, we would require an

allegation of a defect. Otherwise, the

manufacturer would be required to

report incidents that came to its

attention when no one believes that the

manufacturer’s product contributed to

the death or injury; e.g., a fatal crash

due to high speed or drunk driving.

However, the specific component or

system that allegedly led to the incident

would not have to be identified in the

claim or notice.

Some manufacturers suggested that

the allegation that a vehicle component

is involved would have to be confirmed

before an incident would have to be

reported. We reject this suggestion,

since the litigation process is lengthy,

and it may be months or years before the

involvement of a component is

confirmed, if at all. The vast majority of

cases settle without findings and of

those that do not, many may not

identify the defective component in jury

resolutions. Also, the earlier that

information arrives at the agency, the

earlier our investigators will have

information to determine whether an

investigation needs to be opened.

Some manufacturers also suggested

that the reportable incidents be limited

to failures of or problems with certain

vehicle systems. As discussed below,

we believe that this approach is

appropriate for certain types of

information. However, while deaths and

injuries due to alleged defects are

relatively rare, they are so significant

that we want our information to be as

complete as possible. Therefore, we

propose to require reporting of all

deaths and injuries in the United States

based on claims and notices, regardless

of the implicated components.

Section 30166(m)(3)(A) refers to

claims ‘‘derived from foreign and

domestic sources.’’ In the same vein,

Section 30166(m)(3)(C) refers to the

reporting of certain incidents of which

the manufacturer receives actual notice

that occur in a foreign country, when

the vehicle or equipment is identical or

substantially similar to products offered

for sale in the United States. In an effort

to minimize the burdens associated with

gathering information about incidents in

foreign countries, in this phase of

rulemaking we are proposing to require

only reporting of such claims involving

fatalities occurring in a foreign country

but not to require reports about

incidents in foreign countries that

resulted in non-fatal injuries. Relatively

few claims are filed outside the United

States, and, in light of the anticipated

robustness of the domestic data, we do

not believe that our early warning

capabilities would be adversely affected.

We recognize that this proposal would

require manufacturers and their

affiliates to review foreign information

bases, but believe the seriousness of

fatalities associated with potential

defects warrants this requirement.

H. Identical or Substantially Similar

Motor Vehicles or Equipment.

Under Section 30166(m)(3)(C),

manufacturers of vehicles or equipment

must report:

* * * 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 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. (emphasis added)

In response to the ANPRM, we

received comments on the meaning and

scope of this phrase. These comments

helped us in preparing the NPRM

(‘‘Foreign Defect NPRM’’) published on

October 11, 2001 which would

implement Section 30166(l), Reporting

of defects in motor vehicles and

products in foreign countries (66 FR

51907), which contains the underlined

phrase.

1. The Meaning of ‘‘Identical’’

The ANPRM asked:

‘‘1. Is the word ‘identical’ understood

internationally, or do we need to define

it? If so, how?’’

We discussed this issue extensively in

the Foreign Defect NPRM (see 66 FR

51907 at 10–11) and incorporate that

discussion by reference. We concluded

that a definition of ‘‘identical’’ was not

needed. The same applies to this notice.

2. Substantially Similar Motor Vehicles

The Foreign Defect NPRM discussed

extensively the comments received in

response to the ANPRM on the meaning

of ‘‘substantially similar motor

vehicles’’ (see 66 FR 51907 at 11–13),

and that discussion is also incorporated

by reference. On the basis of these

comments, we proposed that motor

vehicles would be substantially similar

to each other for foreign defect reporting

if one or more of five criteria was met,

at proposed 49 CFR 579.12:

(a) A motor vehicle sold or in use outside

the United States is identical or substantially

66200 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

similar to a motor vehicle sold or offered for

sale in the United States if:

(1) Such a vehicle has been sold in Canada

or has been certified as complying with the

Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;

(2) Such a vehicle is listed in Appendix A

to part 593 of this chapter or determined to

be eligible for importation into the United

States in any agency decision issued between

amendments to Appendix A to part 593;

(3) Such a vehicle is manufactured in the

United States for sale in a foreign country;

(4) Such a vehicle is a counterpart of a

vehicle sold or offered for sale in the United

States or

(5) Such a vehicle and a vehicle sold or

offered for sale in the United States both

contain the component or system that gave

rise or contributed to a safety recall or other

safety campaign in a foreign country, without

regard to the vehicle platform on which the

components or systems is installed and

regardless of whether the part numbers are

identical.

We believe that the first four proposed

criteria are equally appropriate for the

purposes of early warning reporting,

and are proposing them in this notice.

With respect to the fourth criterion, or

alternative test, the preamble of the

Foreign Defect NPRM did not directly

explain what we meant by a

‘‘counterpart’’ vehicle. However, by

example, a discussion appearing on

page 51912 provides an explanation of

what, in our view, would be counterpart

vehicles: ‘‘An example would be Ford

Explorers assembled outside the United

States, such as those assembled in

Venezuela.’’ We added that ‘‘We would

appreciate comments on whether this

latter class of vehicles needs to be

defined with greater specificity,’’

warning that that ‘‘in our view the term

substantially similar sweeps with a

broad brush and is not to be defeated by

persons bent on finding or inventing

distinctions to evade reporting.’’ We

have now decided to propose a

definition of ‘‘counterpart vehicle’’ for

early warning which we believe should

also apply for foreign defect reporting.

A ‘‘counterpart vehicle’’ would be ‘‘a

vehicle made in a foreign country that

is equivalent to one made in the United

States except that it may have a different

name, labeling, driver side restraints,

lighting or wheels/tires, or metric

system measurements.’’ This would

apply to both foreign defect reporting

and early warning reporting.

The fifth alternative test, while

appropriate for foreign defect reporting,

is not relevant for purposes of early

warning. Under the Foreign Defect

NPRM, vehicles would be substantially

similar if ‘‘both contain the component

or system that gave rise or contributed

to a safety recall or other safety

campaign in a foreign country, without

regard to the vehicle platform on which

the component or systems is installed

and regardless of whether the part

numbers are identical.’’ Under Section

30166(l), a potential safety defect has

already been identified in a specific

component or system of a motor vehicle,

usually by the manufacturer. In that

context, the relative precision of a

component-or system-based

determination is workable. However,

under Section 30166(m), a defect has

not yet been identified by the

manufacturer, and often a component-or

system-based analysis will not be

possible based on the information

contained in a claim received by the

manufacturer. Accordingly, we believe

that a less precise focus is warranted.

More particularly, we believe that

platform-based reporting is consistent

with the breadth of early warning

reporting, yet specific enough to provide

focus. We would consider foreign and

U.S. vehicles as substantially similar if

they use the same vehicle platform. An

example would be the Cadillac Catera

which uses the same vehicle platform as

the Opel Omega, or the Jaguar S-Class,

which shares a platform with the

Lincoln LS. We specifically request

comment on our view that foreign and

U.S. vehicles would be substantially

similar for reporting under Section

30166(m) if they shared a platform. We

have not proposed a definition for

‘‘platform.’’ If a commenter believes that

a definition of this term is necessary, we

invite the commenter to suggest a

definition that the commenter believes

is appropriate.

3. Substantially Similar Motor Vehicle

Equipment and Tires

Both Sections 30166(l) and (m)

require reports pertaining to

substantially similar motor vehicle

equipment and tires, and the preamble

to the Foreign Defect NPRM contains a

pertinent discussion of this issue (see p.

51913–14).

For purposes of foreign defect

reporting, we proposed to deem foreign

and U.S. motor vehicle equipment as

identical or substantially similar ‘‘if

such equipment and the equipment sold

or offered for sale in the United States

are the same component or system, or

both contain the component or system

that gave rise or contributed to a safety

recall or other safety campaign in a

foreign country, regardless of whether

the part numbers are identical.’’ The

reference to a safety recall is inapposite

for purposes of early warning, but we

believe that the remainder of the

proposed definition is valid.

Accordingly, we are proposing that an

item of motor vehicle equipment sold or

in use outside the United States would

be identical or substantially similar to

equipment sold or offered for sale in the

United States ‘‘if such equipment and

the equipment sold or offered for sale in

the United States have one or more

components or systems that are the

same, regardless of whether the part

numbers are identical.’’ We believe that

the breadth provided by this definition

is necessary given the nature of claims,

which often do not identify particular

problematic components. In this light,

we would regard foreign child restraint

systems as substantially similar (if not

identical) to U.S. counterparts if they

incorporate one or more parts that are

used in models of child restraints

offered for sale in the U.S., regardless of

whether the restraints are designed for

children of different sizes than those

sold in the U.S. and regardless of

whether they share the same model

number or name. For example, if

buckles, tether hooks, anchorages, or

straps are common throughout a

manufacturer’s range of models, the

child restraints would be substantially

similar even though the buckles, hooks,

anchorages, or straps might be used on

a variety of add-on, backless, belt

positioning, rear-facing or booster seats

produced by the manufacturer.

In light of the foregoing discussion,

we request comments on the

appropriate formulation of test(s) for

determining whether foreign motor

vehicle equipment is substantially

similar to U.S. equipment.

Finally, the Foreign Defect NPRM

contained a relevant discussion on

identical or substantially similar tires

(see p. 51914). We proposed that tires

would be identical or substantially

similar ‘‘if they have the same model

name and size designation, or if they are

identical except for the model name.’’

The wording of today’s proposal differs

slightly; tires would be identical or

substantially similar if they have ‘‘the

same model and size designation, or if

[they are] identical in design except for

the model name.’’ We see no real

substantive difference in the two

proposals and will adopt a common

interpretation of this phrase that will be

identical in both final rules.

I. Claims and Notices Involving Property

Damage

Section 30166(m)(3)(A)(i) provides for

reporting of ‘‘aggregate statistical data

on property damage’’ from alleged

defects in the manufacturer’s products.

1. Definition of ‘‘Property Damage,’’ and

Whether to Define ‘‘Aggregate Statistical

Data’’

In response to the ANPRM,

manufacturers proposed definitions of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66201

property damage to be reported. Nissan

would limit it

to those claims received from vehicle owners,

owner representatives, or insurance

companies, which involve a crash, tire failure

or fire where there is an allegation of defect

which may have caused the crash, tire failure

or fire. Specifically excluded would be

communications requesting restitution for

mechanical breakdown or improper

operation such as the example of the engine

that fails due to lack of maintenance.

AIAM would ‘‘include only claims

received by the manufacturer in writing

* * * limited to incidents in which a

defect is alleged in one of the critical

safety systems (brakes, steering,

occupant restraint, fuel).’’ AIAM also

suggested that a ‘‘dollar value threshold

should be set (perhaps $2500)’’ to

reduce the reporting of minor claims.

In our view, this portion of Section

30166(m)(3)(A)(i) is not limited to

‘‘claims’’ for property damage.

Subparagraph (i) refers to ‘‘data on

claims * * * for serious injuries

(including death) and aggregate

statistical data on property damage.’’

The words ‘‘claims for’’ do not pertain

to property damage. Nevertheless, we

recognize in most cases that

manufacturers will only be aware of

property damage that may be related to

potential defects if they receive a claim

seeking payment for the damage.

Accordingly, with respect to property

damage, we are proposing to require

only reporting of claims information

and not incidents of which a

manufacturer receives actual notice.

We believe that the term ‘‘property

damage’’ needs to be defined, and the

comments have been helpful in

formulating a proposed definition. We

would include damage to the vehicle or

other tangible property, but exclude

equipment failure and matters solely

involving warranty repairs. For

example, if the brakes failed and there

were no physical consequences other

than the need to repair the brake system,

there would be no property damage. If

there was a brake failure and the vehicle

hit an object, there could be property

damage to the vehicle or object.

Accordingly, for purposes of this rule,

we propose that property damage means

‘‘physical injury to tangible property.’’

A property damage claim would mean:

A claim for property damage, excluding that

part of a claim, if any, pertaining solely to

damage to a component or system of a

vehicle or an item of equipment itself based

on the alleged failure or malfunction of the

component, system, or item, and further

excluding matters addressed under warranty.

We also asked for comments on how

to define ‘‘aggregate statistical data on

property damage.’’ We learned that

there is no generally understood

meaning of the term. For example,

Fontaine believes ‘‘aggregate statistical

data’’ means ‘‘the compilation of

quantitative data without specific

information on individual events.’’ For

Delphi, ‘‘aggregate statistical data’’

means ‘‘summaries of property damage

information organized by category (e.g.

model year, product type, damage type)

and tabulated as to total cost or number

of incidents.’’

AIAM would define aggregate

statistical data ‘‘to exclude allegations of

simple failure or breakage of a

component’’ and limit it ‘‘to the number

of incidents involving a collision, tire

failure or fire and occurring in the U.S.’’

DaimlerChrysler would restrict

‘‘aggregate statistical data’’ to warranty

information.

The Alliance stated that non-injury

claims data should be normalized on the

basis of total production or total sales.

Trailer manufacturers, according to

TTMA, ‘‘propose to report statistical

data related to warranty claims, claims

and lawsuits involving property damage

resulting from an alleged safety-related

defect involving the following

components or systems: tires, axles/

suspension/brake components, rear

impact guards, lighting and related

components, king pins and fifth-wheel

couplers, pintle hooks and drawbar

eyes.’’

The property damage information that

we are proposing to require

manufacturers to submit is limited to

the number of claims involving a

limited number of systems, components,

and fires (to be discussed later). Thus,

the information to be submitted will be

‘‘aggregate statistical data.’’ Therefore,

we do not see a need for a separate

regulatory definition of this term.

2. Reports Involving Property Damage

Unlike reporting of claims and notices

of incidents involving deaths and

injuries, we would only require

reporting of property damage claims

when one or more specified vehicle

components or systems has been

identified as causing or contributing to

the incident or damage. These

components and systems were selected

based upon their connection to safety

recalls in the past, as described in

Section IV below. They vary depending

on the type of vehicle or equipment that

is the subject of the report.

If the incident that allegedly led to the

property damage also resulted in a death

or injury, the manufacturer would only

report the incident as one involving a

death or injury, and it would not be

required to report the incident under the

property damage requirement.

Otherwise, there could be a misleading

‘‘double count.’’

Reports of property damage claims

would be submitted in the same manner

as the number of consumer complaints,

warranty claims, and field reports,

discussed later. The information would

be reported separately for each model

and model year and would be submitted

in electronic form, as discussed in

Section VII below. The manufacturer

would not be required to submit

documents reflecting the extent of the

property damage or the details of the

incident that allegedly led to the

damage.

With respect to manufacturers of

motor vehicle equipment, we are

proposing to require only manufacturers

of tires to report property damage

information. We note that it is extremely

unlikely that a child restraint would

cause significant property damage.

We also propose that a vehicle

manufacturer need not include in its

report property damage claims that are

for $1,000 or less, on the ground that

this would exclude minor matters and

reduce reporting burdens. We request

comments on whether it is appropriate

to establish such an exclusion, and, if

so, what the level should be.

Tire manufacturers have historically

kept records of all property damage

claims, without regard for the amount of

the claim, and this information has

proven to be very valuable in

identifying potential tire defects. For

these reasons, we are proposing to

require tire manufacturers to report all

property damage claims, regardless of

the amount of the claim.

J. Consumer Complaints

We are proposing to require

submission of information about certain

‘‘consumer complaints’’ as ‘‘other data’’

under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).

1. Definition of ‘‘Consumer Complaint’’

The ANPRM addressed consumer

complaints but did not suggest a

definition of ‘‘consumer complaint.’’

Nissan commented that the meaning of

‘‘consumer complaints’’ in the ANPRM

was not clear, and that a definition was

needed. DaimlerChrysler proposed the

following definition: ‘‘Reports of

incidents causing some dissatisfaction

with the product, not necessarily

accompanied by any demand for

compensation or reimbursement.’’ Both

DaimlerChrysler and Nissan noted that

there was overlap between ‘‘consumer

complaints’’ and ‘‘claims,’’ and that it

would be difficult to completely

separate the two. DaimlerChrysler also

stated that about half of the over

100,000 ‘‘customer contacts’’ it receives

66202 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

monthly represent consumer complaints

and half involve questions or comments

about the product.

NTEA argued that only safety-related

complaints should be reported, and that

non-safety-related complaints should

not be reported.

Notwithstanding DaimlerChrysler’s

and Nissan’s assertions, we believe that

we can formulate a definition for

‘‘consumer complaint’’ that would not

overlap with our proposed definition of

‘‘claim.’’ The primary distinction is that

a ‘‘consumer complaint’’ would not seek

monetary or other relief. It would be

defined as:

a communication of any kind made by a

consumer (or other person) to a manufacturer

expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or

relating the unsatisfactory performance of a

product, or any actual or potential defect in

a product, or any event that allegedly was

caused by any actual or potential defect in a

product, but not including a claim of any

kind or a notice involving a fatality or injury.

The term ‘‘a communication of any

kind’’ would primarily include

communications that are written but it

would also include oral complaints,

such as made through a telephone call,

that a manufacturer memorializes in a

document, including an electronic

information system. The definition we

propose would also include

communications in which the owner of

a vehicle or item of equipment that is

subject to a defect or noncompliance

recall asserted that the remedy failed to

correct the defect or noncompliance.

We recognize that this definition

would include complaints about

problems that do not involve safety.

Based on our past experience during

defect investigations, we do not believe

that it would be appropriate to simply

require reporting of ‘‘safety-related’’

problems, since manufacturers often

have a much more narrow view of what

constitutes a safety-related problem than

we do. As explained below, we will

assure that manufacturers only need to

report consumer complaints about

safety-related problems by itemizing the

specific safety-related components and

systems with respect to which

complaints must be reported.

2. The Rationale for Requiring Reports

of Consumer Complaints

Over the years, NHTSA’s Office of

Defects Investigation (ODI) has made

productive use of consumer complaints

to manufacturers in its investigations of

alleged defects. The problem experience

of owners or operators in the real-world

use of their vehicles and equipment, as

reflected in their communications to

manufacturers, has indicated failures of

components and systems that can have

an impact on safety. While a given level

of complaints regarding some

components or systems may not

indicate the existence of a defect, a

higher level might. (This level would

vary, depending on the component or

system involved.) Because we have no

way to measure directly, or to count, all

failures in the field, the frequency of

consumer complaints (which

complement warranty claims and field

reports) can provide valuable

indications of possible safety problems

warranting further investigation.

Consumer complaints were discussed in

the Congressional hearings that led to

the TREAD Act. See, e.g. Firestone Tire

Recall: Hearing before the Subcomm. on

Telecomm. Trade & Consumer Prot. and

the Subcomm. on Oversight &

Investigations of the House Comm. on

Commerce. 106th Congress (as yet

unpublished) (September 6, 2000)

(Statement of Dr. Susan Bailey,

Administrator, NHTSA).

We stated in the ANPRM that

consumer complaints might help in the

early detection of possible safety-related

defects, and might be ‘‘particularly

important after the expiration of

warranties.’’ During the warranty

period, consumer complaint data would

complement warranty data. We sought

comments on how, whether, and to

what extent we should require

manufacturers to submit information

about consumer complaints to us under

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

The responses from advocacy groups

and the manufacturers differed

significantly. Advocates and Public

Citizen supported requiring the

submission of consumer complaint

information. One manufacturers’ group,

AORC, which represents a segment of

equipment manufacturers, agreed with

us that consumer complaints can

provide a means to help NHTSA

identify potential safety defects.

Most manufacturers and trade

associations that commented on this

issue opposed requiring the submission

of consumer complaint information.

Essentially, they argued that consumer

complaint data would not be of any real

value as early warning information.

With respect to light vehicles, Ford and

the Alliance noted that owner and

consumer correspondence is less

technically rich or timely than other

sources of information. Three

equipment manufacturers

(ArvinMeritor, Atwood and TRW)

argued that consumer complaints were

of only marginal value. RMA,

representing tire manufacturers, stated

that reporting of all informal complaints

would generate information that is

misleading because it might be

misinterpreted as fact, and that verbal

complaints did not usually provide

sufficient information to verify the

legitimacy of the complaint. MIC also

argued that the majority of consumer

complaints are unreliable.

The ANPRM did not specifically state

whether we expected to require

manufacturers to submit complete

copies of consumer complaints or

simply ‘‘counts’’ of those complaints.

MIC stated that ‘‘reporting of consumer

complaints should not be required due

to the large volume and the need to

evaluate them as material to the purpose

of the rule unless the Agency

contemplates receiving all such

communications.’’ Johnson Controls

commented that even a count of

customer complaints would overwhelm

the agency ‘‘by data that has

questionable relevance to safety.’’

With respect to data other than

consumer complaints, Public Citizen

stated that, in most cases, summary

information would be adequate until

evidence of a potential defect surfaces.

However, it would make an exception

for consumer complaints. It would

require submission of complete

consumer complaints, because NHTSA

‘‘already has in place a well-developed

system for categorizing those complaints

by scanning them into a searchable

format.’’ Advocates argued that

consumer complaint information ‘‘is an

important resource,’’ but suggested only

that it ‘‘should be reported in aggregate

form in conjunction with other reported

information.’’ It would have a

manufacturer search its database for

relevant consumer reports for entries

about the same or similar type of

occurrence, vehicle system, part, or

component when the manufacturer had

information about a death, injury, or

property damage.

After reviewing the comments

received and assessing the value of

consumer complaints to an early

warning system, we have decided to

propose requiring manufacturers of 500

or more vehicles as well as all child seat

manufacturers to provide aggregated

consumer complaint information to us

on a periodic basis, but not to require

copies of such complaints periodically.

NHTSA relies heavily on consumer

complaint information in initiating and

conducting defect investigations. We

often open investigations on the basis of

consumer complaints that we receive

and screen. More than 75 percent of the

investigations conducted by ODI are

opened on the basis of complaints that

we receive from individual consumers,

or that are furnished to us by interested

third parties, such as consumer groups,

police departments, State vehicle

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66203

inspectors, and school bus and other

fleets.

After it opens investigations, ODI

routinely asks manufacturers to provide

information and copies of consumer

complaints on the ‘‘subject defect;’’ also,

ODI often asks manufacturers to update

complaint information during the

course of the investigation. This sort of

information is very valuable in

evaluating whether a defect related to

motor vehicle safety exists in a given

vehicle or equipment item. Since our

first litigated defects enforcement case,

United States v. General Motors Corp.

(‘‘Wheels’’), 518 F.2d 420, 438 (D.C. Cir.

1975), which held that a prima facie

case of defect can be made by showing

a significant, ‘‘non de minimis number’’

of failures of a critical part that is

expected to last for the life of the

vehicle, the federal courts have

recognized that consumer complaints

can be a valuable source of evidence of

the existence of a safety-related defect in

motor vehicles.

ODI’s experience has shown that

consumers are more likely to report a

problem to the manufacturer than to

NHTSA. Historically, the number of

consumer complaints to the

manufacturer (either directly or through

dealers) that NHTSA obtains after

opening a defect investigation usually

exceeds by a substantial amount the

number of complaints that NHTSA had

received directly from consumers prior

to opening the investigation. Also, many

consumers do not complain to NHTSA

until after they have complained

(unsuccessfully) to the manufacturer.

Although there is no single threshold of

consumer complaints about a particular

component or system that will

automatically trigger a defect

investigation, it is likely that if it were

aware of a relatively large number of

consumer complaints to a manufacturer,

ODI might well open investigations

earlier. To the extent that such an

investigation led to a recall, opening it

earlier would likely have led to

corrective action at an earlier date and

the avoidance of some additional

incidents.

Consumer complaints to child seat

manufacturers have also consistently far

outnumbered those to NHTSA about

particular problems. For example, in

November 1996, ODI opened an

investigation of harness release button

breaks in certain infant car seats. ODI

had received four consumer complaints

when it opened the investigation. After

writing to the manufacturer and

requesting complaint information, ODI

learned that the company had received

328 complaints about the harness

release button in those seats. Similarly,

in May 1998, ODI opened an

investigation of harness buckle failure

in infant car seats on the basis of two

consumer complaints. After writing to

the manufacturer, ODI learned in July

1998, only two months later, that the

company had received 92 complaints.

Both of these investigations led to

corrective action by the manufacturers.

We believe that NHTSA’s ability to

identify potential defects in a timely

manner, and to identify and understand

emerging defect trends, would be greatly

strengthened if the agency were to

receive information about consumer

complaints relatively shortly after the

manufacturer does. At present, ODI’s

decisions as to which products should

be investigated are often based on

limited information from consumers.

We are not proposing to require tire

manufacturers to report the number of

consumer complaints. We have

concluded, from our experience with

conducting tire investigations, that

consumer complaints to tire

manufacturers generally do not contain

useful information for analysis of the

alleged problem. For example, tire

complaints do not consistently have full

information describing the tire model,

size, and date of manufacture. Without

this identification, an analysis of failure

rates and trends is not possible. Far

more useful for analysis of potential

defect trends is the tire manufacturer’s

adjustment (warranty) and claims data.

The adjustment and claims data contain

complete identification of the tire make,

model, build plant type, and date of

production. We have received such data

in response to information requests

issued during our defect investigations

and find that these data are far superior

than that contained in complaints.

We are proposing to require larger

motor vehicle manufacturers, and all

child restraint system manufacturers, to

report the number of consumer

complaints that the manufacturers have

received about designated components

and systems of their vehicles or

equipment during each reporting

period. Vehicle manufacturers would

also report complaints about fire. The

designated components and systems

would be the same as those on which

property damage claims are reported.

We are not proposing at this time to

require reporting of consumer

complaints from outside the United

States. There are a number of issues

related to foreign complaints, such as

manufacturer review of potentially large

numbers of complaints in foreign

languages and NHTSA follow-up use,

that dictate against requiring reporting,

at least for the present.

NTEA, representing final stage

manufacturers, said that manufacturers

should be required to report only about

components for which they are

responsible, rather than about all

components in a vehicle about which

they may have received complaints. In

view of our proposal to only require

reporting from manufacturers of 500 or

more vehicles per year (other than

incidents involving fatalities), it is likely

that few NTEA members will have to

submit consumer complaint

information. However, for these that are

covered, we note that the issue of which

manufacturer’s product is ‘‘responsible’’

often is disputed and is not

determinative for early warning

purposes. Moreover, the final stage

manufacturer is often the only entity

with which an owner deals. For

example, a consumer who experiences a

fuel leak in a vehicle is more likely to

complain to that manufacturer than the

chassis manufacturer. To assure that

important information is submitted, we

are proposing to require that each

covered vehicle manufacturer report on

all consumer complaints (and other

specified information) that it receives.

Under this proposal, manufacturers

would be required to review, maintain,

and compile consumer complaints made

in any form, including those made by

telephone to their customer relations

representatives (employees or

contractors) and those made to dealers

that are transmitted to the manufacturer,

as well as written communications

directly to the manufacturer. The

manufacturers have the capability to do

this, as they presently submit relevant

complaints in response to ODI

information requests during defect

investigations.

K. Warranty Claims Information

We are proposing to require

submission of information about certain

‘‘warranty claims’’ as ‘‘other data’’

under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).

1. Definitions of ‘‘Warranty’’ and

‘‘Warranty Claim’’

In the ANPRM, we sought input

related to reporting of warranty claims

but did not define them. We have

decided to propose definitions of

warranty and warranty claim. After

reviewing various definitions of

‘‘warranty,’’ and comments on the issue,

we have decided to propose a definition

of warranty based on the definition of

written warranty in the Moss-Magnuson

Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(6), to which

manufacturers are subject. Under that

Act, a ‘‘written warranty’’ means:

(A) any written affirmation of fact or written

promise made in connection with the sale of

66204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer

which relates to the nature of the material or

workmanship and affirms or promises that

such material or workmanship is defect free

or will meet a specified level of performance

over a specified period of time, or

(B) any undertaking in writing in connection

with the sale by a supplier of a consumer

product to refund, repair, replace, or take

other remedial action with respect to such

product in the event that such product fails

to meet the specifications set forth in the

undertaking, which written affirmation,

promise, or undertaking becomes part of the

basis of the bargain between a supplier and

a buyer for purposes other than resale of such

product.

We propose to tailor that definition to

the subject matter at issue and to define

‘‘warranty’’ as:

Any written affirmation of fact or written

promise made in connection with the sale or

lease of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, or

dealer to a buyer or lessee that relates to the

nature of the material or workmanship and

affirms or promises that such material or

workmanship is defect free or will meet a

specified level of performance over a

specified period of time (including any

extensions of such specified period of time),

or any undertaking in writing in connection

with the sale or lease by a manufacturer,

distributor, or dealer of a motor vehicle or

item of motor vehicle equipment to refund,

repair, replace, or take other remedial action

with respect to such product in the event that

such product fails to meet the specifications

set forth in the undertaking.

As explained below, we propose to

require reporting of the number of

repairs and/or replacements free of

charge under warranties, as well as

those under formal or informal extended

warranties and good will. Good will

includes the repair or replacement of a

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment, including labor, paid for by

the manufacturer, at least in part, when

the repair or replacement is not covered

under warranty. This can occur because

the terms of the warranty have expired,

or the issue is outside the terms of the

warranty, for example, when the

manufacturer pays or participates in

voluntary Buy-Backs and Lemon Law

Buy-Backs of vehicles or motor vehicle

equipment.

The normal practice is for dealers to

perform the repair or to provide the

replacement and then to submit a claim

for reimbursement to the manufacturer.

Accordingly, we propose that warranty

claim means ‘‘any claim presented to a

manufacturer for payment pursuant to a

warranty program, extended warranty

program, or good will.’’

2. Reports Involving Warranty Claims

In the ANPRM, we indicated that we

believed that information about

warranty claims can often provide

relevant information that indicates the

possible existence of a safety defect.

Manufacturers, however, questioned

this. The Alliance and Ford indicated

that the data could be used to provide

a dimension for a problem, but would

be unlikely to be accurate as an early

warning indicator. The primary

problem, as seen by light duty vehicle

manufacturers, is that there is a range of

reasons for warranty claims that do not

necessarily imply a safety defect. As

Honda put it, ‘‘Warranty rates may be

more reflective of Honda’s customer

satisfaction policy than an indication of

product quality or failure rate.’’

Most heavy duty vehicle

manufacturers expressed concerns

similar to those of light duty vehicle

manufacturers. International Truck

noted that ‘‘a manufacturer usually

identifies safety issues long before there

is any indication of such problems in

the warranty system.’’ Several others

commented on what they believed to be

a lack of relationship between warranty

claims and safety defects. Heavy duty

vehicle purchasers, these commenters

related, can choose from standard or

premium warranty coverage terms, and

some fleets negotiate individual

coverage plans that are different from

those applicable to light duty vehicles.

The particular warranty terms vary from

one to eight years, 100,000 miles to

1,000,000 miles, and 3250 operating

hours to 18,000 operating hours.

These commenters asserted that,

without knowing the warranty terms for

the vehicles on which manufacturers

report claim data, it would not be

possible for NHTSA to interpret the data

validly. Additionally, these commenters

stated, because purchasers can choose

their warranty coverage, they can tailor

it to their expected use of the vehicle.

As a result, some warranty coverage

categories could show particularly high

occurrences of claims as a result of use

patterns rather than safety defects.

While this would suggest that

comparisons might not be valid in

determinations whether there is a

defect, it does not demonstrate that the

information would have little or no use.

For example, high rates or substantially

increasing trends might warrant further

inquiry by the agency. Without this

information, the agency might not have

a basis to look into the matter.

If some reporting of warranty data is

required, light duty vehicle

manufacturers argued that claims from

foreign countries should be excluded.

The reasons given by Nissan for

exclusion include significantly greater

complexity of reporting, the existence of

a rich statistical sample due to volume

and diverse operating conditions in the

U.S. without additional foreign reports,

different warranty periods in overseas

markets, and different cultures and

environments overseas. RVIA also

opposed providing foreign warranty

data. PACCAR suggested reporting

foreign warranty information only if the

components are substantially similar.

MIC suggested including warranty

claims information related to major

systems or components, but excluding

foreign warranty data. Harley Davidson

would like to exclude claims unrelated

to safety or performance, such as fit,

finish, or top speed.

Most equipment manufacturers

opposed the reporting of warranty data;

some asserted that they did not have

such data and others asserted any they

did have was of too poor quality to use.

AAIA believes that historic data

involving safety-related items that

suggest potential for defects and/or

recalls should be included in reporting.

The major issue underlying the

opposition of most equipment

manufacturers appears to be that, in

most cases, manufacturers of the

vehicles receive warranty claims rather

than the equipment manufacturers. As a

result, the equipment manufacturers

have limited information, much of

which is considered proprietary by the

vehicle manufacturers. Equipment

manufacturers also repeated the data

quality concerns asserted by both light

and heavy duty vehicle manufacturers.

Tire manufacturers, represented by

RMA, cautioned against assuming that

warranty adjustments reflect tire

defects. It noted that ‘‘many dealers, as

well as tire manufacturers, sometimes

use warranty adjustments as a means to

‘‘keep the customer happy,’’ and

therefore the adjustment is ‘‘not

necessarily a statement about product

performance or an indication of product

deficiency.’’ It also suggested that no

foreign data or data prior to the effective

date of the rule should be reported. It

believes that foreign data is not

comparable because of differences in

coverage and road conditions and

would be a burden to collect because of

possible availability or integration

problems between foreign and U.S. data.

Advocacy groups wanted warranty

claims data to be reported as part of the

early warning system.

Assuming that domestic warranty

claims reporting is required, there was

a common view among light duty

vehicle manufacturers on what

categories to include or exclude.

Restraint systems, brake systems,

steering systems and fuel systems would

be included, as well as tires. However,

this does not cover numerous

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66205

components whose failure has led to

safety recalls.

There was no consensus among heavy

duty vehicle manufacturers on what

warranty claims information should be

reported. In part, the variance is a

reflection of the different products the

commenters manufacture. RVIA and

PACCAR both named restraint systems,

fuel tanks, steering systems, and axle/

suspension/brake components as the

most important systems on which to

report (PACCAR suggested that build

date of vehicles should be used in place

of model year because model year is not

identified in their warranty data and

varies by manufacturer). TTMA focused

on the components relevant to its

members: axle/suspension/brake

components, rear impact guards, tires,

lighting and related components, kingpins and fifth wheel couplers, and

pintle hooks and drawbar eyes. Fontaine

suggested that only components most

frequently associated with recalls,

including equipment to which a FMVSS

applies and defined safety-related items,

should be subject to reporting.

After reviewing the comments

received and assessing the value of

warranty claims data to the early

identification of possible safety defects,

we have decided to propose to require

manufacturers of 500 or more vehicles

annually and all child seat and tire

manufacturers to report aggregated

warranty claims data from the U.S. on

certain specified components and

systems (as described below).

Although we agree that the evidence

of even a relatively high rate of warranty

claims does not necessarily indicate the

existence of a defect, our experience in

conducting defect investigations has

demonstrated that warranty claims

information often reveals a potential

problem that could be related to safety.

As noted above, we are limiting our

proposal to require information

regarding only some systems. Moreover,

we would not require actual copies of

warranty claims, but rather a listing of

the number of such claims regarding

each specified component or system in

each vehicle or equipment model

received by the manufacturer in each

reporting period.

As with consumer complaints,

manufacturers would have to maintain

warranty claims, group the numbers of

claims by reporting categories, and

report them. Most, if not all,

manufacturers maintain warranty

information in computerized databases,

and they have the ability to provide

problem-specific warranty information

under this rule, since they already do so

in response to ODI’s information

requests during defect investigations.

L. Field Reports

As part of its defect investigations,

ODI regularly requires manufacturers to

provide ‘‘field reports’’ about alleged

defects. These include communications

received by a manufacturer from the

manufacturer’s technical staff, a dealer,

an authorized service center, or others,

regarding an alleged problem in or

dissatisfaction with a product in use.

They are usually prepared by someone

with technical expertise. There are far

fewer field reports than consumer

complaints, although practices resulting

in the generation of field reports vary

widely among manufacturers. Field

reports are not specifically mentioned in

the TREAD Act, but were addressed in

the ANPRM. We sought input on the

appropriate definition of field report,

the components or systems on which

field reports would be valuable in an

early warning context, information in

them that should be reported to NHTSA,

and manufacturers’ use of them. We are

proposing to require submission of

information and documents about

certain ‘‘field reports’’ as ‘‘other data’’

under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).

1. Definition of ‘‘Field Report’’

The ANPRM asked for comments on

an appropriate definition of ‘‘field

report.’’ Two broad themes cut across

industry responses. First, respondents

stressed the importance of clearly and

precisely defining the term ‘‘field

report.’’ The term has a variety of

meanings, both within and across

industry segments. The Alliance

requested that the term be defined as

technical reports by technical staff

involving one or more incidents in the

field involving a covered vehicle system

on a vehicle that had been sold.

According to other respondents, the

term has numerous meanings within the

medium and heavy-duty truck industry

as well as among equipment

manufacturers and is not well defined

across the tire industry. We were told

that the trailer industry, for example,

does not use the term ‘‘field reports.’’

The second broad theme in the

comments by manufacturers was a

recommendation to limit the number

and types of field reports to be reported

to us. As reflected in the definition

suggested above, the Alliance would

limit it to certain technical reports about

an incident (or several similar incidents)

that are prepared by technical

representatives. The Alliance would

exclude unverified reports regarding

customer complaints that are passed

through to the manufacturer without

any technical analysis. They would also

exclude research reports or accident

reconstruction reports prepared for local

police departments or litigation.

Commenters in the tire industry and the

heavy trucking industry indicated that

many of the communications they refer

to as field reports deal with sales,

marketing and customer satisfaction

programs, which they would exclude.

We have concluded that the

Alliance’s proposed restriction of the

definition to ‘‘technical reports’’ that are

prepared by ‘‘technical’’ employees is

not feasible. It would require a

definition of ‘‘technical’’ and ‘‘technical

report’’ and assessments of whether the

author was a technical employee and

whether the content amounted to a

technical report, which could result in

delays, under-reporting, and

unnecessary burdens. Nonetheless, we

agree that sales and marketing literature

should not be included.

There was considerable discussion

about whether we should require the

reporting of field reports prepared by a

dealer’s technicians. The Alliance

recommended including both types of

reports in an early warning system.

Some manufacturers as well as MIC,

however, felt that submission of dealer

reports should not be required. We

believe that it is important for us to

receive information about such dealer

reports received by manufacturers

regarding potential defects because they

are a valuable source of relevant

information. Indeed, they are one of the

bases upon which manufacturers

become aware of potential defects in

their products. We therefore are

proposing to require reporting of the

cumulative number of field reports

prepared both by manufacturers’

employees or representatives and by

dealers, including their employees.

However, manufacturers would not

have to submit copies of reports

prepared by dealers or dealer

employees.

We also propose to include in our

definition of ‘‘field report’’ any

document received by a manufacturer

that was prepared by a person owning

or representing one or more fleets of

vehicles. For these purposes, a fleet

would be defined as more than ten

vehicles of the same model and model

year. Such reports often contain data on

multiple incidents involving vehicles

used by delivery companies (e.g.,

FedEx, UPS), rental companies, trucking

companies, police departments, and

school districts. Fleet vehicles generally

accumulate greater miles over a given

period of time than non-commercial

vehicles and therefore can serve as a

valuable source of predictive

information for early warning purposes.

66206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Other definitional issues raised by

commenters were whether field reports

should be limited to written

communication and to ‘‘non-privileged’’

documents. Reporting would be

required with regard to documented

communications (e.g., those in writing,

entered electronically, or otherwise

converted into a document in the

broadest sense of the word). With

respect to the issue of privilege, we

recognize that a field report truly

prepared in anticipation of litigation

could be considered as work product,

and thus ordinarily be exempt from

production in litigation. We believe that

the existence of any such reports should

be indicated to us, even though

privileged and work product documents

would not have to be submitted.

Accordingly, we propose the

following definition for ‘‘field report:’’

A communication in writing, including

communications in electronic form, from an

employee or representative of a manufacturer

of motor vehicles or motor vehicle

equipment, a dealer or authorized service

facility of such manufacturer, or by an entity

that owns or operates a fleet, to a

manufacturer, regarding the failure,

malfunction, lack of durability, or other

performance problem of a motor vehicle or

motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof,

produced by that manufacturer, regardless of

whether the problem is verified or assessed

to be lacking in merit.

2. Reporting of Field Reports

The ANPRM asked whether reporting

of field reports should be limited to

reports on systems and components that

are safety-related, and whether the same

systems and components should be

covered as for warranty claims. The

ANPRM did not identify the specific

systems and components with respect to

which the submission of field reports

might be required.

TTMA supplied a list that included

some equipment: rear impact guards,

lighting and related components, king

pins and fifth wheel couplers, pintle

hooks and drawbar eyes. On the

opposing side, ArvinMeritor felt that

each manufacturer is best able to

determine what components and

environmental and loading factors

constitute a possible risk of product

failure and whether those failures are

likely to pose a risk to safety. Public

Citizen opposed limiting early warning

programs to certain components or

special lists of parts. It argued that an

incremental approach is ‘‘dangerously

under-inclusive and thus out of

conformance with Congressional intent

under the TREAD Act.’’

We do not agree that each

manufacturer should be allowed to

determine possible risks of product

failure and whether they are likely to

pose a risk to safety before reporting

field report information. On the other

hand, we do not agree with Public

Citizen that an incremental approach

under which only certain reports would

have to be submitted would be

‘‘dangerously under-inclusive,’’

particularly if we require the

submission of field reports on systems

and components that historically have

been most represented in safety defect

recall campaigns.

We have tentatively decided,

therefore, that manufacturers of 500 or

more motor vehicles and all

manufacturers of child restraint systems

and tires must report the number of

field reports originating in the United

States regarding the same components

and systems as for property damage

claims, consumer complaints, and

warranty claims. As with these

categories of information, reporting

would be done separately for each

model and model year.

Consumer complaints that were

merely forwarded to the manufacturer

by the dealer without any comment or

assessment would not have to be

reported as field reports, but they would

have to be reported as consumer

complaints.

In addition to requiring the number of

field reports by category that are

prepared or received during each

reporting period, we would require

copies of the field reports themselves

that are generated by employees or

representatives of the manufacturer or

by representatives of fleets of the

manufacturers’ vehicles. We would not

require copies of reports that are

prepared by dealers or their employees.

M. Customer Satisfaction Campaigns,

Consumer Advisories, Recalls, or Other

Activities Involving the Repair or

Replacement of Motor Vehicles or Motor

Vehicle Equipment

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

for submission of information (derived

from foreign and domestic sources) that

concerns ‘‘customer satisfaction

campaigns, consumer advisories,

recalls, or other activity involving the

repair or replacement of motor vehicles

or items of motor vehicle equipment’’

(we will use the term ‘‘campaign’’ at

times hereafter collectively to refer to all

such actions by the manufacturer). As

we stated in the ANPRM, this new

section is broader than 49 CFR 573.8

(2001) (which implements Section

30166(f)), which requires a

manufacturer to provide copies of

communications to more than one

manufacturer, distributor, dealer, lessor,

lessee, or purchaser 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.’’ We further

stated in the ANPRM that this category

of information would encompass any

communication to, or made available to,

more than one dealer, distributor, other

manufacturer, or more than one owner,

whether in writing or by electronic

means, relating to replacement or repair

of a component, or modification of the

way that a vehicle or equipment item is

to be operated.

The ANPRM requested comments on

whether the various campaign activities

identified in the TREAD Act should be

defined, and, if so, what would be

appropriate definitions. Most of the

comments from the light and heavy

vehicle manufacturers generally argued

that campaigns should be defined

because the term has different meanings

across industry segments. Nevertheless,

only the Alliance suggested a definition

(also endorsed by Ford and Nissan),

which reads as follows:

Customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer

advisories, recalls, or other activity involving

the repair or replacement of motor vehicles

or items of motor vehicle equipment shall

mean those actions, other than foreign recalls

or other safety campaigns as further defined

[by the Alliance], undertaken or authorized

by a manufacturer in which a class of

affected owners of motor vehicles or items of

motor vehicle equipment are notified of an

offer to repair or replace the vehicle or

equipment or to extend any applicable

vehicle or equipment warranty.

The proposed Alliance definition

does not address one of the categories of

action identified in the statute: ‘‘other

activity involving the repair or

replacement of motor vehicles or items

of motor vehicle equipment.’’ It is also

too limited with respect to some of the

other categories. For instance,

‘‘customer satisfaction campaigns’’ and

‘‘consumer advisories’’ need not involve

repair, replacement, or extended

warranties. Also, a ‘‘consumer advisory’’

could include a warning relating to the

way that a vehicle is to be driven or

maintained. Accordingly, it would not

necessarily involve repair or

replacement.

We agree with the Alliance’s

suggestion that foreign recall and safety

campaigns, which are covered under

Section 30166(l), and a new Subpart B

to 49 CFR Part 579 (see the Foreign

Defect NPRM at 66 FR 51907 et seq.),

need not be separately reported under

the early warning provisions.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66207

We propose to define the phrase

‘‘customer satisfaction campaign,

consumer advisory, recall, or other

activity involving the repair or

replacement of motor vehicles or motor

vehicle equipment,’’ to mean:

Any communication by a manufacturer to, or

made available to, more than one dealer,

distributor, lessor, lessee, other

manufacturer, or owner, whether in writing

or by electronic means, relating to (1) repair,

replacement, or modification of a vehicle,

component of a vehicle or item of equipment,

or a component thereof (2) the manner in

which a vehicle or equipment is to be

maintained or operated, or (3) or advice or

direction to a dealer or distributor to cease

the delivery or sale of specified models of

vehicles or equipment.

We have included communications

related to operation and maintenance

because they may relate to a potential

defect. For example, a warning not to

turn on the wipers when the windshield

has snow on it may indicate a wiper

defect.

The proposed definition would not

include routine marketing documents or

documents relating to surveys of owner

satisfaction. It would include all

notifications, product improvement or

technical service bulletins, advisories,

and other communications regarding the

subject matter that are issued to, or

made available to, more than one

vehicle or equipment dealer, distributor,

lessor, lessee, other manufacturer or

owner involving any systems or

components in the vehicle or

equipment, not merely the specified

components for which reports must be

submitted regarding property damage

claims, consumer complaints, warranty

claims, or field reports. This would

include any category of information

relating to the replacement or repair of

a vehicle or vehicle component, or the

way a vehicle or vehicle equipment item

is to be maintained or operated, whether

or not there has been any determination

by the manufacturer that these actions

pertain to or are being undertaken

because of a defect or a safety-related

concern.

In our view, this requirement is

similar to although somewhat broader

than the notices, bulletins, and other

communications that for years have

been required to be submitted by 49

CFR 573.8 (2001). Under Section 573.8,

a manufacturer might argue that a

condition that was the subject of a

communication to dealers or others did

not rise to the level of a ‘‘defect’’ or

‘‘malfunction,’’ and that it therefore did

not have to provide copies of such a

communication to NHTSA. Under early

warning reporting, it would have to

provide these related notices regardless

of whether a ‘‘defect’’ existed.

Nevertheless, because of these

similarities, we are proposing to

implement this aspect of early warning

reporting by including it in the same

section as current Section 573.8, which

would be moved to a new Section

579.5(a). This new Section 579.5(b)

would also apply to all manufacturers of

vehicles and equipment, which are

currently required to submit copies of

similar communications to NHTSA on a

monthly basis. We anticipate that there

will be relatively few documents

covered by this proposal that would not

have been covered under Section 573.8.

In our administration of existing

Section 573.8, we have noted several

problems, such as the failure of a

manufacturer to make monthly

submissions of covered documents and

disputes over what had actually been

sent to us. These problems could have

been avoided if the manufacturer had

issued a cover letter identifying the

submitted documents. Therefore, we are

proposing to require a cover letter for

each monthly submission of documents

required to be submitted under

proposed Section 579.5 that identifies

each communication in the submission

by name or subject matter and date.

If a communication falls within the

category described in both Section

579.5(a) and Section 579.5(b), it would

only have to be submitted once.

Finally, the ANPRM sought comments

on whether we should require

manufacturers to provide additional

information regarding the facts and

analysis that led to the decision to

conduct the campaigns. Many of the

commenters opposed a requirement of

this nature, feeling that requiring the

routine submission of background

information regarding the facts and

analysis that led to campaigns would be

extremely burdensome. On the other

hand, both CU and Advocates

contended that NHTSA should receive

information regarding the facts and

analysis that led to the manufacturer’s

decision to initiate the campaign.

The general consensus of

manufacturers was that NHTSA should

review all covered communications,

including service bulletins that the

agency currently receives under Section

573.8, and then decide whether to

request additional facts and analysis on

a case-by-case basis. This is what we

currently do with respect to

communications received under Section

573.8. Certain communications suggest

a potential safety issue which requires

clarification. ODI then contacts the

manufacturer to obtain additional

information, as appropriate. We plan to

proceed in the same manner with

respect to these submissions, except that

we would require each submission to be

accompanied by a cover letter

identifying each communication that is

part of the submission and the date of

the communication.

N. Components, Systems and Fires To

Be Included in Reports

We considered requiring

manufacturers to provide us with the

number of property damage claims,

consumer complaints, warranty claims

and field reports that are associated

with all systems and components of a

vehicle or item of equipment. We

decided against doing so, because this

approach could generate large volumes

of information that, we believe, would

not be particularly useful. Instead,

NHTSA has attempted to identify, for

each category of vehicle, for child

restraint systems, and for tires, those

systems and components whose failures

are most likely to lead to safety recalls.

These are the systems and components

on which it is most important that we

obtain timely information regarding

failures, as compared to failures that are

not related to safety or those that rarely,

if ever, lead to safety recalls. Our goal

was to select those systems and

components which capture the vast

majority of safety recalls. In identifying

these vehicle systems and components,

we requested the Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe)

to conduct an analysis of past defect

recalls. For each category of vehicle,

Volpe looked at, among others, the total

number of defect recalls associated with

various specific systems and

components, the number of vehicles

covered by those recalls, the number of

recalls influenced by ODI investigations,

and the number of recalled vehicles

influenced by ODI investigations.

The study provided information on

different components and systems

implicated in recalls for light vehicles,

medium-heavy vehicles, buses,

motorcycles, and trailers. A copy of the

study, which includes a description of

the methodology, is in the docket. The

underlying data are in NHTSA’s DIMS

II data base which can be searched by

the public through the NHTSA website.

The components and systems are

identified below as part of the

discussion on reporting requirements.

For light vehicles, we propose to

require manufacturers to separately

report the number of problems/

incidents related to steering,

suspension, service brakes, parking

brakes, engine and engine cooling

system, fuel system integrity, power

train, electrical system, lighting, visual

66208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

systems, climate control system

including defroster, airbags (including

but not limited to frontal, side, head

protection, and curtains that deploy in

a crash), seat belts (including

anchorages and other related

components), structure (other than

latches), seats, engine speed control

including throttle and cruise control,

integrated child restraint systems,

latches (door, hood, hatch), tires,

wheels, trailer hitches and related

attachments, and the number of

incidents in which there was a fire. For

incidents of death and injury only, if

another system or component is

allegedly involved or if the system or

component is not specified in the claim

or notice, the incident would be

included, and ‘‘other’’ would be

specified. Figures 2 and 3, below,

represent pro-forma examples of how a

manufacturer of light vehicles would

report incidents involving deaths and

injuries and warranty claims, using

electronic spreadsheets.

Incidents Involving Deaths and/or Injuries Based on Claims and Notices

LIGHT VEHICLES

Reporting Period:

Manufacturer:

Make Model Model year Incident date Number of

deaths

Number of

injuries

(U.S. only)

State or foreign

country

Involved

systems or

components

(see below)

Involved Systems or Components:

01 Steering

02 Suspension

03 Service Brakes

04 Parking Brakes

05 Engine Speed Control Including Throttle and Cruise Control

06 Air Bags

07 Seat Belts

08 Integrated Child Restraint Systems

09 Latches—Doors, Hoods, Hatches

10 Tires

11 Fuel System Integrity

12 Power Train

13 Electrical System

14 Engine and Engine Cooling System

15 Structure (other than Latches)

16 Visual Systems

17 Seats

18 Lighting

19 Wheels

20 Climate Control System Including Defroster

21 Trailer Hitches and Related Attachments

22 Fire

99 Other

Fig. 2

Warranty Claims

Light Vehicles

Manufacturer:

Reporting Period:

Make Model Model

year

Number of reports

Steering Sus- pen- sion Service brakes Park- ing brakes Engine Fuel system Power train Elec- trical Light- ing Visual Cli- mate control Seat belts Air bags Struc- ture Seats Engine speed con- trols Inte- grated child re- straints Lat

2003200220012000199919981997

Note: Make, model, and model year data will be coded in a way to relate it to data in the products table shown in Figure 1. Reports must be broken out for each subgroup, by fuel system type and b

more than one brake or fuel system was produced in a given make, model, and model year product line.

Figure 3

66210 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

We have placed in the docket copies

of pro-forma spreadsheets for other

types of numerical reporting, such as

property damage claims, and request

comments on the appropriateness and

utility of this format. We have also

proposed definitions for many of the

systems and components for which

reporting would be required, such as

suspension, vehicle speed control, and

latches. While we believe that these

definitions are straight forward and selfexplanatory, we request comments on

their accuracy and completeness.

For medium-heavy vehicles, we

propose to require manufacturers to

separately report the number of

problems/incidents relating to steering,

suspension, service brakes, parking

brake, engine and engine cooling

system, fuel system integrity, power

train, electrical system, lighting, visual

systems, climate control system

including defroster, airbags (including

but not limited to frontal, side, head

protection, and curtains that deploy in

a crash), seat belts including anchorages

and other related components, structure

(other than latches), seats, engine speed

control including cruise control, latches

(door, hood, hatch), tires, wheels, trailer

hitches and related attachments, engine

exhaust system, the number of incidents

in which there was a fire, and, for

incidents of death only, if another

system or component is allegedly

involved or if the system or component

is not specified in the claim or notice.

For buses/school buses, we propose to

require manufacturers to separately

report the number of problems/

incidents relating to steering,

suspension, service brakes, parking

brake, engine and engine cooling

system, fuel system integrity, power

train, electrical system, lighting/horn/

alarms, visual systems, climate control

system including defroster, airbags

(including but not limited to frontal,

side, head protection, and curtains that

deploy in a crash), seat belts including

anchorages and other related

components, structure (other than

latches), seats, engine speed control

including throttle and cruise control,

latches (door, hood, hatch), tires,

wheels, trailer hitches and related

attachments, engine exhaust systems,

the number of incidents in which there

was a fire, and, for incidents of death

only, if another system or component is

allegedly involved or if the system or

component is not specified in the claim

or notice.

For trailers, we propose to require

manufacturers to separately report the

number of problems/incidents relating

to suspension, service brakes, parking

brakes, electrical system, lighting/horns/

alarms, climate control systems

(including fuel systems in camping/

travel trailers), structure (other than

latches), latches, tires, wheels, trailer

hitches and related attachments, the

number of incidents in which there was

a fire, and, for incidents of death only,

if another system or component is

allegedly involved or if the system or

component is not specified in the claim

or notice.

For motorcycles, we propose to

require manufacturers to separately

report the number of problems/

incidents relating to steering,

suspension, service brakes, engine and

engine cooling system, fuel system

integrity, powertrain, electrical system,

lighting, structure, engine speed control

(including throttle and cruise control),

wheels, tires, the number of incidents in

which there was a fire, and, for

incidents of death only, if another

system or component is allegedly

involved or if the system or component

is not specified in the claim or notice

ODI did not ask Volpe to analyze

recalls of child restraint systems. Rather,

ODI separately reviewed those recalls to

identify the components whose failures

have led to most of the recalls. Based on

this review, which has been placed in

the docket, we propose to require

manufacturers to separately report the

number of problems/incidents relating

to the buckle and restraint harness,

handle, shell, and base.

With respect to tires, we are

proposing to follow the suggestions of

the Rubber Manufacturers Association

(RMA) in its comments. Fatality and

injury reporting would include the

information required of manufacturers

of other products, and would also

include the damage claimed, the vehicle

manufacturer, the vehicle make, model

and model year, the tire size, ‘‘the tire

line,’’ and the DOT identification code

for the tire. In addition, under RMA’s

suggestions shown in Attachment B to

Comment NHTSA 2001–8677–15,

warranty and property damage claim

data would be provided for each

applicable ‘‘tire size, tire line, SKU,

serial code, Mfg. Plant, OE/Repl, OE

Vehicle & Year.’’ (We specifically

request RMA to provide their comments

on appropriate definitions of the terms

‘‘bead,’’ ‘‘common green,’’ ‘‘tire line,’’

‘‘sidewall,’’ ‘‘SKU,’’ and ‘‘serial code’’.)

For each year of production, the

manufacturer would provide the

number of tires produced under

warranty and the total number of tires

produced, the number of adjustments,

the warranty adjustment rate, the

number of property damage claims, and

the property damage claims rate.

For property damage and warranty

adjustments, we propose to require

manufacturers to separately report the

number of problems/incidents relating

to tread, sidewall, and bead. For

incidents involving death, if another

component is allegedly involved, or if

the component is not specified in the

claim, the incident would still have to

be reported.

Each tire manufacturer would also

have to include information regarding

‘‘common green tires’’ with respect to

each applicable tire model.

Consistent with the approach taken in

connection with the Uniform Tire

Quality Grading Standard, 49 CFR

575.104, we are not proposing to require

reporting of warranty adjustment,

property damage claims, and field

reports with respect to tires for which

total annual production of the same

design and size is 15,000 or less. This

would include retreaded tires as well,

and may have the practical effect of

excluding most, if not all, retreaded tire

manufacturers from all reporting

requirements except for reports of

incidents involving death.

O. One-time Reporting of Information

on Certain Information Received From

January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002,

on 1994–2003 Model Year Vehicles, and

on Child Restraints and Tires

Manufactured on or After January 1,

1998

As early warning reporting begins,

receipt by NHTSA of information from

the first several reporting periods would

not provide sufficient information to

allow us to identify potential safety

defects unless we could compare it to

similar information about earlier

periods. Without this historical

information, we would not be able to

identify potential defect trends or make

comparisons. For example, data

indicating that a particular component

in a particular model/model year

vehicle was the subject of six property

damage claims in the third year after the

model was introduced would be more

relevant if we knew the claims history

of similar models in recent years. To

assure that the data are useful from the

onset of reporting, we must ‘‘seed’’ our

data base with historical data rather

than merely letting it accumulate from

the effective date of the final rule.

Therefore, we are proposing that, no

later than the date that a manufacturer

must submit its first reports under the

final rule, expected to be April 30, 2003,

each manufacturer would also submit,

on a one-time basis, corresponding

reports reflecting the same information

required by paragraphs (a) and (c) in

each of proposed Sections 579.21

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66211

through 579.27, as applicable, providing

information on the numbers of property

damage claims, consumer complaints,

warranty claims, and field reports that

it received in each calendar quarter from

January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2002,

for each model and model year vehicle

manufactured in model years 1994

through 2003, for child restraint systems

manufactured on or after January 1,

1998, and for tires manufactured on or

after January 1, 1998. Each report would

identify the alleged system or

component related to the claim,

incident, etc., as would the reports for

the current reporting period. We would

not require such historical information

on claims for deaths and injuries

because we do not expect information of

this type to indicate trends in potential

defects to the same extent as warranty

claims or property damage claims may.

We request comment on whether the

time frame for the proposal is

appropriate, and whether we should

exclude historical data for deaths and

injuries.

V. Information That We Would Not

Require at This Time

The ANPRM requested comments on

whether we should require reporting on

a number of additional types of

information that could help us to

promptly identify possible defects.

However, given the fact that a final rule

must be published in less than eight

months from the publication date of this

notice, and in recognition of the

potential burdens on manufacturers to

develop information systems capable of

retaining and reporting information to

us, we have attempted to minimize

these burdens to the extent possible.

Moreover, we have concentrated our

efforts on identifying the types of

information noted in the statute or for

which most manufacturers currently

maintain records, such as customer

complaints and warranty claim data.

A. Internal Investigations and Design

Changes in Parts and Components

We received a number of comments

on the questions we asked regarding

manufacturers’ internal investigations of

possible safety-related defects.

Manufacturers generally called attention

to the semantic difficulties in

determining when an investigation had

been commenced and the alleged

chilling effect a reporting requirement

might have on such investigations. For

the present, we have decided not to seek

this type of information, but we may

give further consideration to this issue

in future rulemaking relating to early

warning reporting.

We also asked for comments on

requiring reporting of changes in the

design or construction of parts. Many

commenters felt that this would be

burdensome due to the sheer number of

changes, few of which relate to safety.

We are deferring any consideration of

requiring reports of parts changes.

B. Most Activities and Events in Foreign

Countries

As noted above, at this time we are

proposing to require manufacturers to

report to us information on claims

regarding foreign deaths (and on foreign

campaigns under Section 30166(l)),

involving substantially similar motor

vehicles and equipment. We may decide

to propose reporting of additional

information regarding foreign activities

and incidents in a future rulemaking.

VI. When Information Would 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.’’ The ANPRM discussed

several possibilities.

A. Periodically

The statute authorizes us to require

periodic reporting of information related

to the early warning of defects. In the

ANPRM, we posited reporting on bases

of ‘‘information-as-received,’’ monthly,

and quarterly, depending upon our

perception of the gravity of the

information involved (e.g., we suggested

the possibility that information about

deaths allegedly caused by safety

defects might justify a more frequent

period of reporting than other types of

information).

Commenters generally objected to

reporting information ‘‘as received.’’

There was no objection to reporting on

a quarterly basis, the same as is required

for defect campaign reporting under 49

CFR 573.6.

On balance, we have concluded that,

with respect to statistical reports, an ‘‘as

received’’ or even monthly basis would

impose too great a burden and would be

unlikely to provide significant

timeliness benefits. A quarterly

reporting period would appear to be

more appropriate. However, we request

comments on whether we should

require reporting six times per year.

Finally, the burden upon manufacturers

would be lessened if a common

reporting date were adopted for the

submission of all statistical early

warning information that we will

require ‘‘periodically.’’

We are proposing that all information,

as well as copies of relevant field

reports, be submitted to us not later than

the 30th day of the calendar month

following the end of the reporting

period. We believe that 30 days will be

sufficient to compile this information,

but we request comments on whether a

shorter or longer period would be

appropriate. We also propose that all

communications that would be required

by Section 579.5 (those presently

required by 49 CFR 573.8 and those that

would be covered by the early warning

rule, i.e., communications relating to a

customer satisfaction campaign,

consumer advisory, recall, or other

safety activity involving the repair or

replacement of motor vehicles or

equipment) be submitted to us monthly,

within 5 working days of the end of the

month, as is presently required for

submissions under Section 573.8.

B. Upon NHTSA’s Request

The TREAD Act also requires all

manufacturers to provide information

within the scope of the early warning

provision when we request it. Such a

requirement complements our preTREAD authority to request safetyrelated information as part of our

investigations. Under this new

authority, the information need not

relate to an investigation; it need only

be of such a nature that it may assist us

in the identification of safety-related

defects. Thus, we plan to follow up with

manufacturers to obtain additional

information if the information in the

periodic reports suggests that there may

be a possible problem. Such inquiries

need not be characterized as formal

defect investigations. Rather, they

would be part of the agency’s screening

process under which it decides whether

to open a defect investigation into

particular matters.

VII. The Manner and Form in Which

Information Would Be Reported

Section 30166(m)(4)(A) (iii) requires

us to specify ‘‘the manner and form of

reporting [early warning] information

including in electronic form.’’

Before the ANPRM, we had a limited

amount of knowledge about information

that manufacturers receive regarding

certain types of incidents and activities

in the United States, in what form it is

received, and how, if at all, they route,

code, maintain, and review the

information. It seemed likely to us that

the types of information to be reported

would be kept in a variety of

manufacturer computer systems and

formats, at least for major and mid-sized

66212 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

manufacturers. Some manufacturers

might use different computer systems

for different types of information, and

some might not be computerized at all.

We noted that to be able to use most of

the early warning information

efficiently, we would have to maintain

it in computer systems that can read and

incorporate the information into a

standardized set of data fields,

definitions, and codes.

In the ANPRM, we discussed the

possibility of establishing levels below

which manufacturers would not be

required to report to us, citing the

practice of the California Air Resources

Board in establishing a ‘‘trigger’’ of a

percentage of returned emissions system

components. Upon reflection, we have

concluded that determining appropriate

triggers is not possible at this time. We

lack a basis for establishing triggers, and

it would be unduly complicated to

determine a dividing line. Companies

have different practices with respect to

warranty programs, field reports, and

other information items. The comments

did not give us sufficient information to

establish appropriate dividing lines. We

believe that the solution we propose, the

submission of the numbers of activities

or incidents, will provide us with more

usable information and obviate the need

for a manufacturer to calculate rates

based upon production figures that

change from one reporting period to the

next.

In the ANPRM, we discussed the

possibility of using spreadsheets in a

specified format with separate reports of

the numbers of various categories of

information (e.g., claims/notices of

deaths and injuries, consumer

complaints, warranty claims, field

reports) along with other information

(such as production volumes) by make,

model, model year, and by component

(we would specify which components).

We would then be able to utilize a

computer to identify aggregate numbers,

rates (using production data which

would be submitted), or unusual trends

in each of these categories. This would

obviate the need for manufacturers to

provide us with their warranty or claims

codes or to make significant revisions to

their current coding procedures.

NHTSA is considering several

alternative methods for manufacturers’

to submit their periodic reports. As

described elsewhere, aggregate data

would be required from some

manufacturers. These data would be

formatted in either a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet, or in a form readily

importable into an Excel spreadsheet,

using the then-current version of Excel.

NHTSA would establish a link on its

web site to a data repository suitable for

containing these data. Manufacturers

would be able to use that link to ‘‘push’’

their file to the NHTSA site. Upon

receipt of the data, an acknowledgement

would be returned to the submitter,

noting the date and time of the

submission.

For data files smaller than the size

limit of the DOT Internet e-mail server,

currently set at 5 MB [megabyte],

manufacturers could submit their data

as an attachment to an e-mail message.

NHTSA would establish an e-mail

address to receive these submissions.

The e-mail system would provide a

return receipt. There is, however,

increased risk that this method would

not result in the data actually arriving

at the appropriate office in NHTSA,

since e-mail servers are often unreliable

in handling of large attachments, both

within DOT and, possibly, within the

manufacturers’ own systems. We believe

that the preferred method, based on ease

of use and reliability, would be the web

site link described above.

NHTSA would also accept the data on

a CD-ROM, mailed to the Office of

Defects Investigation via certified mail

with the postal service return receipt.

For small manufacturers, which only

need to submit minimal amounts of

data, we are considering establishing an

interactive form on our web site that

could be filled out by manual data entry

by the submitter. It is anticipated that

this method will require completing a

form for each make, model, and model

year of a product that was involved in

a fatal incident.

Paper documents, computer printouts,

or similar non-electronic submissions of

the required aggregate data would not be

acceptable.

With respect to copies of

communications submitted under

proposed Section 579.5 and copies of

manufacturer and fleet field reports, we

would prefer receiving the documents

in electronic form using any state of the

art graphic compression protocol

available, through any of the first three

methods described above. However, we

would also accept paper copies of those

documents mailed to ODI.

Submitting manufacturers would have

to provide ODI with the name and

contact information (phone number,

address, e-mail address, etc.) of a

technical IT (information technology)

point-of-contact person who will be

responsible for resolving issues with

data submissions as they come up from

time to time.

We are willing to consider other

methods for delivery of the data, and we

invite comment on the feasibility of

these suggestions, and any other

proposed methods.

After the final rule is published but

before the first reporting period, NHTSA

will conduct a public meeting at the

DOT headquarters in Washington to

discuss implementation of the data

transmission methods. Interested

persons, particularly the manufacturers’

IT staff members, will be invited to

discuss technical issues in an open

forum to resolve any issues regarding

the technical issues related to the

submission of data.

There would be six reports for

manufacturers of 500 and more vehicles,

representing: (1) production

information, (2) incidents involving

deaths and injuries identified in claims

and notices, (3) property damage claims,

(4) consumer complaints, (5) warranty

claims data, and (6) field reports. We

have previously discussed the

information content for Category (2) in

Section IV.D.4 above, and for the other

categories in Section IV.N above.

We would not require manufacturers

to submit the actual documents

constituting claims and notices

involving death or injuries, property

damage claims, warranty claims,

consumer complaints, or dealer field

reports. Manufacturers would have to

retain each such claim, report, etc., for

a period of five calendar years from the

date the manufacturer acquires it, but

would not have to retain it after the

calendar year is or becomes ten years

greater than the model year of the motor

vehicle that is the subject of the

document. For example, if on July 1,

2002, a manufacturer were to receive

two consumer complaints relating to

1996 and 1999 model year automobiles,

the manufacturer would have to retain

the complaint on the MY1999

automobile until July 1, 2007. However,

it would only have to keep the

complaint about the MY1996

automobile until the beginning of the

2006 model year, even though less than

five years had passed. (For purposes of

this provision only, and to avoid any

uncertainty, we will construe the model

year as beginning on September 1 of the

preceding year).

While this proposal would not require

manufacturers to maintain records in

electronic recordkeeping systems, we

believe that the burdens associated with

the proposed reporting requirements

would be significantly reduced if

manufacturers maintained data and

records in searchable electronic

systems. We again seek comments on

the nature of manufacturers’

recordkeeping systems for data and

documents related to early warning

reporting and as to the feasibility of

various ways of searching their systems

for relevant information.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66213

2NHTSA is proposing in this document to require

similar retention of records by manufacturers of

motor vehicle equipment, as well as a longer period

for retention. See discussion below.

VIII. How NHTSA Plans To Handle and

Utilize Early Warning Information

A. Review and 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.

In the Alliance’s view, under Section

30166(m), NHTSA ‘‘cannot compel the

reporting of information unless it will

’assist in the identification of defects

related to motor vehicle safety.’’’ This

provision ‘‘is a substantive limitation on

NHTSA’s new information gathering

powers, and therefore one that cannot

be made absent notice and an

opportunity for public comment on the

agency’s tentative conclusions.’’ For this

reason, the Alliance believes that

NHTSA should explain as part of this

NPRM ‘‘how it will review and use any

information it proposes to require ’to

assist in the identification of effects

related to motor vehicle safety,’ and

allow public comment on that

explanation.’’

We do not agree with the Alliance’s

assertion, since 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 rulemaking procedures.

Nevertheless, we sought, and continue

to seek, public comment on ways to

improve our collection, review, and

analysis of information and data with

the new reporting tools that Congress

has given us.

We stated in the ANPRM that we

would specifically address the matters

covered by subparagraphs (i) and (ii)

above. We originally thought that we

would do this through amendments to

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). Upon review, however, we

have concluded that Part 554 covers

agency enforcement investigations and

actions, and does not relate to material

of the nature that would be reported to

the agency under early warning

reporting (we shall refer to this as ‘‘preinvestigation’’ information or materials).

Therefore, we are not proposing

amendments to that regulation.

Rather, we will comply with the

statutory provision by explaining in this

document that we intend to consider

pre-investigation information received

under Section 30166(m) in the same

manner as we currently treat other

information that is now available to us

about possible safety defects, such as

consumer complaints to NHTSA and

documents received from manufacturers

under 49 CFR 573.8. That is to say, we

will review the available data and

information to determine whether

potentially problematic trends are

developing in the vehicles, equipment

items, components, and systems for

which information has been provided.

As noted earlier, if we identify matters

that might possibly suggest the

existence of a safety defect, we plan to

seek additional clarifying information

from the manufacturer in question, and

from other sources, to help us to decide

whether to open a formal defect

investigation. If we decide to change

this approach, we will discuss any such

changes in the final rule to be issued in

2002.

We are in the process of developing

an enhanced data warehouse and data

processing system called ARTEMIS—

Advanced Retrieval (Tire, Equipment,

Motor vehicles) Information System.

ARTEMIS will provide for centralized

storage of information, include a

document management system, use data

analysis tools, allow access to electronic

information such as NASS and FARS,

and facilitate the provision of

appropriate information to the public.

We expect to have a fully functional

system by the summer of 2002, although

modifications may be made throughout

the remainder of 2002 in preparation for

the receipt of early warning information

beginning in early 2003.

B. Information in the Possession of the

Manufacturer

Section 30166(m)(4)(B) provides as

follows:

(B) Information in possession of

manufacturer.—The [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.

The information that we are

proposing to require manufacturers to

submit to us is in their possession, or

will be under the recordkeeping

requirements that we plan to adopt. For

example, if a manufacturer does not

have ‘‘possession’’ of a claim or a

complaint or a field report, it obviously

cannot (and would not have to) report

to us about such a document. However,

we want to emphasize that we will not

tolerate any attempts by manufacturers

to utilize this provision to avoid

reporting by improperly failing to

obtain, maintain, and retain relevant

records.

For many years, pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 576, Record Retention, we have

required manufacturers of motor

vehicles to retain for a period of five

years from the date of generation or

acquisition ‘‘complaints, reports, and

other records concerning motor vehicle

malfunctions that may be related to

motor vehicle safety’’ (49 CFR 576.1).

These are described with great

specificity in 49 CFR 576.6:

Records to be maintained by manufacturers

* * * include all documentary materials,

films, tapes, and other information-storing

media that contain information concerning

malfunctions that may be related to motor

vehicle safety. Such records include, but are

not limited to, communications from vehicle

users and memoranda of user complaints;

reports and other documents, including

material generated or communicated by

computer, telefax or other electronic means,

that are related to work performed under or

claims made under warranties; service

reports or similar documents, including

electronic transmissions; from dealers or

manufacturer’s field personnel; and any lists,

compilations, analyses, or discussions of

such malfunctions contained in internal or

external correspondence of the manufacturer,

including communications transmitted

electronically.

Section 576.8 sets forth the meaning

of ‘‘malfunctions that may be related to

motor vehicle safety,’’ which include

with respect to a motor vehicle:

* * * any failure or malfunction beyond

normal deterioration in use, or any failure of

performance, or any flaw or unintended

deviation from design specifications, that

could in any reasonably foreseeable manner

be a causative factor in, or aggravate, an

accident or an injury to a person.

Thus, manufacturers of motor

vehicles, by virtue of complying with

Part 576, already have in their

possession the types of information that

would have to be reported under this

rule.2

As we stated in the ANPRM, we

interpret ‘‘possession’’ as meaning not

only information in the actual

possession of a manufacturer’s

employees or in its proprietary

databases, but also constructive

possession and ultimate control of

information, such as information in the

possession of affiliates or subsidiaries in

66214 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

foreign countries, or information

possessed by outside counsel or

consultants. Thus, manufacturers would

have to report claims to us that may be

in the form of lawsuits filed with

attorneys outside the company who are

representing the manufacturer. This

may require a manufacturer to

periodically consult with its counsel

and foreign affiliates to ensure that

reports are accurate.

C. Disclosure

The TREAD Act does not affect the

right of a manufacturer to request

confidential treatment for information

that it submits to NHTSA. The rules that

pertain to such requests can be found in

49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business

Information.

Specifically, as provided in Part 512,

manufacturers that submit information

claimed to be confidential should

identify the particular portions of their

submission for which they claim

confidentiality and they should stamp

or mark the word ‘‘confidential’’ or

some other term that clearly indicates

the presence of information claimed to

be confidential, on the top of each page

that contains information claimed to be

confidential.

In addition, submitters of information

claimed to be confidential should

include with their submissions a

certification stating that the

manufacturer (or its agents) have made

a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the

submitted information has not been

disclosed or otherwise been made

public and should also include

information supporting their claim for

confidential treatment. The supporting

information should, among other things,

inform the agency of the period of time

for which confidential treatment is

being requested and describe the

particular harm that would result from

disclosure.

In accordance with Part 512, requests

for confidential treatment should be

submitted in a separate enclosure

marked confidential to the Office of

Chief Counsel, NCC–30, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. In

addition, at least one complete copy of

the submission (including the portions

that contain information claimed to be

confidential) and also at least one copy

of a public version of the submission

(from which portions claimed to be

confidential have been redacted) should

be submitted directly to the office that

requested that information. Information

submitted to the agency by a

manufacturer pursuant to its obligations

under the TREAD Act and the agency’s

implementing regulations will be

entitled to confidential treatment if its

disclosure would be likely to result in

competitive harm to the submitter of the

information, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and National Parks &

Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d

765 (D.C. Cir. 1974). (Since the

submission of the information is

compelled by the agency, the alternative

criteria for voluntarily submitted

information described in Critical Mass

Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871

(D.C. Cir. 1992), (en banc), cert denied,

507 U.S. 984 (1994), would not apply.)

It is expected that the types of

information that manufacturers would

be required to submit to the agency

under this NPRM would include

information about claims and notices

that allege death or injury; numbers of

property damage claims, consumer

complaints, warranty claims, and field

reports. They would also have to submit

documents related to customer

satisfaction campaigns, consumer

advisories, recalls, or other activity

involving the repair or replacement of

motor vehicles or equipment, as well as

certain field reports. Historically, these

types of information generally have not

been considered by the agency to be

entitled to confidential treatment,

unless the disclosure of the information

would reveal other proprietary business

information, such as confidential

production figures, product plans,

designs, specifications, or costs. See 49

CFR Part 512, Appendix B. Light vehicle

production information is generally not

confidential, unlike production data on

child restraint systems and tires.

Accordingly, the agency does not

expect to receive many requests for

confidential treatment for submissions

under the early warning reporting

requirements of the TREAD Act.

However, if a manufacturer believes that

any portion of materials submitted to

the agency should be treated

confidentially, the manufacturer should

request confidential treatment for the

information, in accordance with Part

512.

Some of the materials that

manufacturers would be required to

submit to the agency under this NPRM,

such as field reports and supplemental

reports about claims and notices of

deaths, may contain personal

information regarding individuals. Such

personal information might include

names, addresses, telephone numbers,

driver license, credit card or social

security numbers; or medical

information. One issue presented by this

rulemaking is how will the privacy of

individuals be protected. In particular,

the agency seeks comment on whether

the manufacturer should submit only

redacted versions of required field

reports, or some alternative.

D. The Proposed Requirements Are Not

Unduly Burdensome

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.

The ANPRM gave manufacturers a

general idea of the types of data and

information that they may be required to

submit under a final rule. This allowed

them to make a tentative assessment of

the burdens that an early warning

reporting rule may entail. Some

manufacturers and other commenters

addressed these issues. There is a fuller

discussion in the agency’s Preliminary

Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) of

estimated costs to manufacturers which

has been placed in the docket. We have

taken these comments into

consideration in formulating a proposed

rule. This will allow manufacturers to

make a more accurate assessment of

potential compliance burdens and to

identify them with specificity. The

agency has tried to reduce the burden to

the extent possible while still fulfilling

the intent of the TREAD Act.

In our view, there is unlikely to be a

significant burden associated with the

actual reporting of information. Rather,

the burden on each manufacturer will

depend on the extent to which that

manufacturer must revise and/or

supplement its current information

management and retention systems.

Most major manufacturers already have

a log or database of information about

each of the categories for which early

warning reporting would be required

that is comprehensive and regularly

updated. In this case, the burden

associated with the rule would not be

substantial. At most, such

manufacturers would have to add

several data elements, such as the

identification of components involved

in claims and a process for dealing with

foreign claims related to deaths.

If a manufacturer does not already

have logs or databases that include

relevant categories of information, it

would have to develop one or more

systems to review, retrieve, organize and

log the information it receives. It may

also have to utilize manual systems and

retrieve information from files.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66215

The PRE estimates the number of

claims, warranty claims, customer

complaints, field reports, etc. for each of

the following groups of manufacturers:

light vehicles, medium and heavy

trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, tires,

and child restraint systems. It estimates

the costs of setting up computer systems

to handle the reporting requirements

and the types of skills and labor hours

needed to provide the proposed

information. For example, for light

vehicle manufacturers, the PRE

estimates the first year start-up costs

will be over $1.6 million and that

recurring annual costs will be over $1

million. Similar estimates are made for

each of the other groups of

manufacturers. Cumulative costs for the

other groups are significantly higher,

since they include many more

manufacturers, and many of those

manufacturers are not as computerized

today as the light vehicle manufacturers.

The total start-up costs for all affected

industries is estimated to be about $18

million, while recurring annual costs

will be about $6 million.

We eliminated reporting requirements

that could potentially create significant

burdens when we thought that the

information that would have been

provided would not substantially

improve our ability to detect potential

defects in a timely manner. We have

significantly reduced the burden on

manufacturers of vehicles and

equipment from the levels that could

have been required under the TREAD

Act, at least for this phase of

rulemaking. First, other than requiring

reports about incidents involving deaths

based on claims and notices, which do

not need to be maintained in a complex

computer system, and campaign

documents, we have decided not to

require small vehicle manufacturers,

original equipment manufacturers and

replacement equipment manufacturers

(other than manufacturers of child

restraint systems and tires), to submit

periodic early warning reports. Second,

we have decided not to require at this

time any information about incidents

that occur in foreign countries except

for those based on claims involving

deaths. We believe there would be

problems in collecting data, categorizing

it by component or system, translating

it, and deciding if it related to vehicles

or equipment that were similar to

vehicles and equipment in the United

States. We believe the costs of doing so

might be up to ten times the cost of

supplying similar information from the

United States.

We also considered requiring

information for all systems and

components of a vehicle, instead of

those specified in Section IV.N above.

We believe that the reduced number of

components on which reporting is

required will reduce reporting costs.

With respect to field reports, we also

considered whether to require a hard

copy of all reports by fleets,

manufacturers, and dealers. After the

Alliance estimated that there are about

two million dealer field reports per year

(on all subjects), we decided not to

require copies of dealer reports.

E. 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 early

warning rule is developed and issued,

we anticipate that our 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 make internal adjustments

where called for, or propose appropriate

modifications to the final rule. This

would be an on-going process of

evaluation. We plan to commence the

initial review of the rule within one year

after the initial reports are received.

Subsequently, we plan to review our

defect information-gathering procedures

at least once every four years.

IX. Proposed Extension of

Recordkeeping Requirements To

Include Manufacturers of Child

Restraint Systems and Tires

Our principal record keeping

regulation is 49 CFR Part 576, Record

Retention. The current regulation

applies only to motor vehicle

manufacturers and requires them to

keep certain records for a period of five

years.

A colloquy on the floor of the House

with respect to Section 30166(m)(4)(B)

addressed the need to preserve relevant

records to assure that the goals of the

TREAD Act are achieved:

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.

As we discussed in Section VIII

above, we are proposing to amend Part

576 to assure that documents covered by

the early warning regulation are kept for

an appropriate length of time after a

manufacturer acquires or generates

them.

Part 576 currently applies only to

vehicle manufacturers, while the

TREAD Act covers manufacturers of

motor vehicle equipment as well. We

propose to extend the applicability of

Part 576 to those equipment

manufacturers from whom we would

require full reporting, i.e.,

manufacturers of child restraint systems

and of tires. We ask for comments on

whether record retention requirements

should also be expanded to include

manufacturers of replacement

equipment other than child restraint

systems and tires and manufacturers of

original equipment.

Until the TREAD Act, the requirement

that a remedy for safety defects and

noncompliances be provided without

charge did not apply if a vehicle or

child restraint system was bought by the

first purchaser more than eight calendar

years, or a tire, including an original

equipment tire, was bought by the first

purchaser more than three calendar

years, before the determination that a

defect or noncompliance existed.

(Section 30120(g)(1)). Section 4 of the

TREAD Act amended Section

30120(g)(1) to extend the free remedy

period to ten years for vehicles and most

replacement equipment including child

restraint systems, and to five years for

tires.

Currently, 49 CFR 576.5 requires

manufacturers of motor vehicles to

retain the records specified in 49 CFR

576.6 for a period of five years from the

date they were acquired or generated by

the manufacturer. The purpose of Part

576 is:

* * * to preserve records that are needed for

the proper investigation, and adjudication or

other disposition, of possible defects related

to motor vehicle safety and instances of

nonconformity to the motor vehicle safety

standards and associated regulations (49 CFR

576.2)).

To effectuate this purpose, we believe

that records that may be pertinent to

possible defects and noncompliances

should be retained by a manufacturer of

motor vehicles for the period during

which the manufacturer is required to

provide a remedy without charge. Thus,

we are proposing amending Section

576.5 to extend the record retention

period from five years to ten years for

the records specified in Section 576.6.

Given that manufacturers of child

restraint systems and tires are also

required by statute to remedy defects

and noncompliances without charge,

and that they are also covered by the

TREAD Act’s early warning reporting

requirements, we have tentatively

decided that manufacturers of child

66216 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

restraint systems and tires should be

required to retain records for ten and

five years, respectively.

We find the same justification for

including manufacturers of child

restraint systems and tires that we did

in our original proposal of August 20,

1974, to adopt Part 576 (which was

limited to vehicle manufacturers):

Typically, the manufacturer is the main

recipient of complaints of malfunctions by

the vehicle [or equipment] owner. Many

reports of malfunctions are processed

through channels for the administration of

vehicle [or equipment] warranties by

manufacturers and their dealers.

Manufacturers’ field service representatives

may also serve as collection points for

information of this nature. It is to be expected

that manufacturers compile analyses and lists

of malfunction reports, with a view toward

* * * the remedying of safety-related

defects. Since some defects are not revealed

as such until months or years after the

vehicle’s [or equipment’s] manufacture, a

determination by NHTSA of the proper

disposition of a possible defect * * * may be

seriously hindered if manufacturers do not

retain these records (39 FR 30048).

We note that in 1995 we amended 49

CFR 576.5 to extend the record retention

period from five years from receipt of

the information to eight years from the

last date of the model year in which the

vehicle to which the record relates was

produced, in order to make it congruent

with the period for free remedy.

However, we received a number of

petitions for reconsideration of the

amendment, rescinded it, and, on

January 4, 1996, reinstated the previous

period of five years. In doing so, we

noted (61 FR 274 at 276):

The primary reason for this decision is the

time and cost burdens that the amendment

would have placed upon vehicle

manufacturers. Several manufacturers stated

that it would be highly costly and extremely

time consuming to change their

computerized record keeping systems to

comply with the new record retention

requirements. The agency has concluded that

the safety benefit that would be derived from

revising the record retention period

requirements would be far outweighed by

costs and other burdens on resources that

would be incurred by manufacturers in order

to make the change.

The agency believes that costs of data

retention technology on a unit storage

basis in electronic format have

decreased since 1996, and, therefore,

that the cost of record keeping systems

would be acceptable in light of the

TREAD Act provisions.

Currently, Section 576.6 includes as

records to be kept ‘‘communications

from vehicle users and memoranda of

user complaints; * * * material * * *

related to * * * claims made under

warranties; service reports or similar

documents, including electronic

transmissions, from dealers or

manufacturer’s field personnel; * * *.’’

This definition clearly covers consumer

complaints, warranty claims, and field

reports, which we are proposing to

require manufacturers to keep for

periods of not more than five years. We

would remove these categories from

Section 576.6 where we are proposing

that the documents covered by that

section be held by vehicle

manufacturers for ten years.

Finally, we have reviewed our

regulation on tire record keeping, 49

CFR Part 574. Section 574.6(d) and

Section 574.10 require, respectively, tire

manufacturers and motor vehicle

manufacturers to maintain records of

new tires they produce, and tires on

new vehicles and the names and

addresses of the first purchaser of the

vehicles for not less than three years

after the date of purchase. In light of the

statutory amendment increasing the

period from three to five years for free

remedy of tires, and our proposed

conforming change to Part 576, we are

proposing conforming amendments to

Sections 574.6(d) and 574.10 under

which these records would also be held

for five years.

X. Administrative Amendments to 49

CFR Part 573 To Accommodate Final

Rules Implementing 49 U.S.C. Sections

30166(l) and (m)

For many years, we have required

manufacturers to furnish us with a copy

of all notices, bulletins, other

communications including warranty

and policy extension communiques and

product improvement bulletins

regarding defects, whether or not safety

related (49 CFR 573.8). Currently, this

requirement is located in our regulation

on defect and noncompliance reporting,

49 CFR Part 573. Given our intent to

adopt a new regulation, Part 579

Reporting of Information and

Communications About Potential

Defects, it seems appropriate to transfer

the subject matter of Section 573.8 to

Part 579. Accordingly, in the Foreign

Defect NPRM, we proposed a Section

579.5 which is identical to Section

573.8. Proposed Section 579.5 would

become Section 579.5(a), under this

early warning NPRM. Under proposed

Section 579.5(b) we would receive

additional documentation such as

communications relating to a customer

satisfaction campaign, consumer

advisory, recall, or other safety activity

involving the repair or replacement of

motor vehicles or equipment where a

manufacturer had not decided that a

defect exists. When the first final rule is

issued, implementing either Section

30166(l) or Section 30166(m), we will

remove Section 573.8.

There currently exists a regulation

cited as 49 CFR Part 579 Defect and

Noncompliance Responsibility. This

regulation sets forth the responsibilities

of manufacturers for safety-related

defects and noncompliances. As such,

we feel that it would be appropriate for

its specifications to be reflected in Part

573. Accordingly, we shall amend Part

573 to incorporate these specifications

at the time our proposed new Part 579

becomes effective.

XI. Rulemaking Analyses

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) provides for making

determinations whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and to the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines as ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

We have considered the impact of this

rulemaking under E.O. 12866 and the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking has been determined to be

non-significant by the Office of

Management and Budget under E.O.

12866. This action has also been

determined to be not ‘‘significant’’

under DOT’s regulatory policies and

procedures because of the anticipated

relatively low costs that would be

required to implement the rulemaking

(see the agency’s discussion of impacts

above as taken from the PRE). This

action does not impose substantive

requirements and only requires

reporting of information in the

possession of the manufacturer.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. NHTSA

has considered the impact of this

rulemaking action in relation to the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66217

3Some conversions of the larger versions of vans

and pickups involve vehicles of over 8500 lbs. GVW

rating, to which the Advanced Air Bag rulemaking

did not apply.

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

601 et seq.) Information on the number

of enterprises manufacturing relevant

equipment or vehicles currently sold in

the U.S., by product category, is

presented below. It should be noted that

the employee figures within the

parentheses are the employment

thresholds for classification as a small

business from the January 1, 2001

edition of 13 CFR 121.201—Small

Business Size Standards. The

categorization below is based on

consolidated employment of any known

parent company and its other

subsidiaries.

1. Passenger cars and light trucks,

including vans, SUV’s and pickups.

(1000 employees) Ward’s Automotive

Yearbook 2000 lists 16 manufacturers of

such vehicles sold in the United States,

net of any that are now merged with or

majority-controlled by another. All are

large businesses.

In the 1998 (Preliminary) Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis prepared for the

FMVSS 208 (Advanced Air Bag)

rulemaking, NHTSA stated that were

four small manufacturers of (complete)

motor vehicles in the U.S., accounting

for <.1% of U.S. production, and, in

addition, ‘‘several hundred’’ enterprises

that modified or completed unfinished

vehicles, of which many were van

converters. Light truck conversions

include those for recreational use as

well as for light freight and passenger

carriage, special transport of the

handicapped and other work functions.3

Under the proposed rule, a converter

who certifies a vehicle would be either

a manufacturer or an alterer, and subject

to the reporting requirements.

Conversions, it should be noted, are

covered by the NAICS classification

‘‘motor vehicle bodies produced on

purchased chassis,’’ and are also subject

to the small business threshold of 1000

employees. Almost all final stage

manufacturers and alterers certify fewer

than 500 vehicles annually and would

have very slight reporting requirements.

2. Medium and heavy trucks. (1000

employees) Ward’s Automotive

Yearbook 2000 lists 12 manufacturers of

such vehicles sold in the United States.

All are large businesses. In addition, an

unknown number of enterprises build

specialty freight-carrying or work

function bodies (including fire and

heavy rescue apparatus) onto chassis

produced by these manufacturers. Those

enterprises which certify completed

vehicles would be manufacturers

subject to the reporting requirements of

this proposed rule. Almost all final stage

manufacturers and alterers certify fewer

than 500 vehicles annually and would

have very slight reporting requirements.

3. Buses. (1000 employees) In the

2000 (Preliminary) Regulatory

Flexibility Act analysis prepared for the

FMVSS Nos. 141 and 142 rulemaking

(Platform lift systems), NHTSA

estimated that there were 10 small

manufacturers of transit and paratransit

buses. There is one small manufacturer

of school buses, and three small

manufacturers of over-the-road buses.

4. Motorcycles. (500 employees) Only

two motorcycle manufacturers could be

identified from current editions of

Ward’s and Standard and Poor’s as

small businesses.

5. Trailers. (500 employees). We have

identified 8 trailer manufacturers who

produce 500 or more trailers per year.

The remaining trailer manufacturers,

even if small businesses, would have

minimal reporting obligations under

this rule.

6. Tires. (new—1000 employees;

retreaded—500 employees) Modern Tire

Dealer and Rubber and Plastics News

together identify 10 companies

manufacturing general-service highway

vehicle tires sold in the U.S. under the

companies’ own or ‘‘private brand’’

trade names. All are large businesses.

The International Tire and Rubber

Association website states that there are

approximately 1,126 retread tire plants

in the U.S., of which approximately 95

percent are owned/operated by small

businesses.

7. Child restraint systems. (500

employees) Child restraint systems are

interpreted here as ‘‘infant’s car seats,’’

classified as NAICS 3371247231 under

the system now used in Part 121 in

place of SIC codes, within ‘‘furniture

and related products.’’ Available

information on infant’s car seats yields

a total of 14 independent enterprises, of

which seven are small manufacturers.

8. Small vehicle manufacturers,

manufacturers of original equipment,

and manufacturers of replacement

equipment other than child restraint

systems and tires. While there are

manufacturers of fewer than 500 light

vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, buses,

trailers, and motorcycles annually, and

manufacturers of original and

replacement equipment (other than

manufacturers of child restraint systems

and tires) that are small businesses,

these manufacturers would have a

reporting obligation under this

regulation limited to incidents of death

involving their products. These are

expected to be rare. Thus, this rule

would have only a slight impact on

these manufacturers.

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 Executive Order

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 NPRM would

regulate the manufacturers of motor

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment

and 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 Executive Order 13132.

Civil Justice Reform. A rule based on

this NPRM 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 numerical counts of

information, so as to ensure consistency

of responses, and are proposing

appropriate spreadsheets in this NPRM.

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, the

requirements proposed 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

66218 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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, we are unlikely to extend

the comment closing date for this

notice. 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

final rule, we will consider that

comment as an informal suggestion for

future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments

Submitted by Other People?

You may read the comments received

by Docket Management at the address

and times given near the beginning of

this document under ADDRESSES.

You may also see the comments on

the internet. To read the comments on

the internet, take the following steps:

(1) Go to the Docket Management

System (DMS) Web page of the

Department of Transportation (http://

dms.dot.gov/).

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

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

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

heading of this document. Example: if

the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

2001–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’

(4) After typing the docket number,

click on ‘‘search.’’

(5) The next page contains docket

summary information for the docket you

selected. Click on the comments you

wish to see.

You may download the comments.

The comments are imaged documents,

in either TIFF or pdf format. Please note

that even after the comment closing

date, we will continue to file relevant

information in the Docket as it becomes

available. Further, some people may

submit late comments. Accordingly, we

recommend that you periodically search

the Docket for new material.

49 List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 574

Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

49 CFR Part 576

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 579

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR chapter V is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 574—TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND

RECORDKEEPING

1. The authority for part 574 is revised

to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 574.7(d) is proposed to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 574.7 Information requirement—new tire

manufacturers, new tire brand name

owners.

* * * * *

(d) The information that is specified

in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and

recorded on registration forms

submitted to a tire manufacturer or its

designee shall be maintained for a

period of not less than five years from

the date on which the information is

recorded by the manufacturer or its

designee.

* * * * *

3. Section 574.10 is proposed to be

amended by revising the final sentence

to read as follows:

§ 574.10 Requirements for motor vehicle

manufacturers.

* * * These records shall be

maintained for a period of not less than

5 years from the date of sale of the

vehicle to the first purchaser for

purposes other than resale.

PART 576—RECORD RETENTION

4. The authority citation for part 576

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322(a), 30117,

30120(g), 30141–30147; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

5. Section 576.1 would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 576.1 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for

the retention by manufacturers of motor

vehicles and of child restraint systems

and of tires, of claims, complaints,

reports, and other records concerning

alleged and proven motor vehicle or

motor vehicle equipment malfunctions

that may be related to motor vehicle

safety.

6. Section 576.3 would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 576.3 Application.

This part applies to all manufacturers

of motor vehicles, with respect to all

records generated or acquired on or after

August 16, 1969, and to all

manufacturers of child restraint systems

and tires, with respect to all records

generated or acquired on or after [the

effective date of the final rule].

7. Section 576.4 would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 576.4 Definitions.

All terms in this part that are defined

in 49 U.S.C. 30102 and part 579 of this

chapter are used as defined therein.

8. Section 576.5 would be revised to

read as follows

§ 576.5 Basic requirements.

As specified in § 576.7:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66219

(a) Each manufacturer of motor

vehicles and each manufacturer of child

restraint systems shall retain all records

described in § 576.6 of this part for a

period of ten calendar years from the

date on which they were generated or

acquired by the manufacturer.

(b) Each manufacturer of tires shall

retain all records described in § 576.6 of

this part for a period of five calendar

years from the date on which they were

generated or acquired by the

manufacturer.

(c) Each manufacturer of motor

vehicles, original equipment, and

replacement equipment shall retain

each claim or notice related to an

incident involving a death or injury.

(d) Each manufacturer of motor

vehicles, child restraint systems, and

tires shall retain each property damage

claim, warranty claim, consumer

complaint, and field report received

from an authorized dealer of such

manufacturer, for a period of five

calendar years from the date the

manufacturer acquires it, but need not

retain it when the calendar year is or

becomes ten years greater than the

model year of any motor vehicle or

child restraint system that is the subject

of the document.

(e) Each manufacturer of motor

vehicles, child restraint systems, and

tires shall retain each field report

received from either one of its

employees or from the owner or

operator of ten or more motor vehicles

of the same make, model, and model

year, that it has manufactured, and a

copy of each document reported to

NHTSA for a customer satisfaction

campaign, consumer advisory, recall

(other than that submitted pursuant to

parts 573 and 577 of this chapter), for

a period of one calendar year after it has

received or generated such report or

document.

9. Section 576.6 would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 576.6 Records.

Records to be maintained by

manufacturers under this part include

all documentary materials, films, tapes,

and other information-storing media

that contain information concerning

malfunctions that may be related to

motor vehicle safety. Such records

include, but are not limited to, reports

and other documents, including

material generated or communicated by

computer, telefax or other electronic

means, that are related to work

performed under warranties; and any

lists, compilations, analyses, or

discussions of such malfunctions

contained in internal or external

correspondence of the manufacturer,

including communications transmitted

electronically.

10. Part 579 is proposed to be revised

to read as follows:

PART 579—REPORTING OF

INFORMATION AND

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT

POTENTIAL DEFECTS

Subpart A—General

Sec.

579.1 Scope.

579.2 Purpose.

579.3 Application.

579.4 Terminology.

579.5 Notices, bulletins, customer

satisfaction campaigns, consumer

advisories, and other communications.

579.6 Address for submitting reports and

other information.

579.7–579.10 [Reserved]

Subpart B—Reporting of Defects in Motor

Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment in

Countries Other Than the United States

579.11–579.20 [Reserved]

Subpart C—Reporting of Early Warning

Information

579.21 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more light

vehicles annually.

579.22 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more mediumheavy vehicles annually.

579.23 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more buses

annually.

579.24 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more

motorcycles annually.

579.25 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more trailers

annually.

579.26 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of child restraint systems.

579.27 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of tires.

579.28 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles

annually, for manufacturers of original

equipment, and for manufacturers of

replacement equipment other than child

restraint systems and tires.

579.29 Due date of reports, and other

provisions.

579.30 Manner of reporting.

Authority: Sec. 3, Pub. L. 106–414, 114

Stat. 1800 (49 U.S.C. 30102–103, 30112,

30117–121, 30166–167); delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart A—General

§ 579.1 Scope.

This part sets forth requirements for

reporting information and submitting

documents that may help identify

defects related to motor vehicle safety

and noncompliances with Federal motor

vehicle safety standards, including the

reporting of foreign safety recalls and

other safety-related campaigns

conducted outside the United States

under 49 U.S.C. 30166(l), early warning

information under 49 U.S.C. 30166(m),

and copies of communications about

defects and noncompliances under 49

U.S.C. 30166(f).

§ 579.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to enhance

motor vehicle safety by specifying

information and documents that

manufacturers of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment must provide

periodically to NHTSA with respect to

possible safety-related defects and

noncompliances in their products.

§ 579.3 Application.

(a) This part applies to all

manufacturers of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment with respect to

all vehicles and equipment that have

been offered for sale, sold, or leased by

the manufacturer, any parent

corporation of the manufacturer, any

subsidiary or affiliate of the

manufacturer, or any subsidiary or

affiliate of any parent corporation of the

manufacturer.

(b) In the case of any report required

under this part, compliance by either

the fabricating manufacturer or the

importer of the motor vehicle or motor

vehicle equipment shall be considered

compliance by both.

§ 579.4 Terminology.

(a) Statutory terms. The terms dealer,

defect, distributor, manufacturer, motor

vehicle, motor vehicle equipment, and

State are used as defined in 49 U.S.C.

30102. For purposes of this part, the

term manufacturer includes any parent

corporation of the manufacturer, any

subsidiary or affiliate of the

manufacturer, any subsidiary or affiliate

of any parent corporation of the

manufacturer, and any legal counsel

retained by the manufacturer.

(b) Regulatory terms. The terms bus,

GVWR, motorcycle, trailer, and truck are

used as defined in § 571.3(b) of this

chapter.

(c) Other terms. The following terms

apply to this part:

Administrator means the

Administrator of the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

or the Administrator’s delegate.

Air service brakes means service brake

systems based on an air actuation

system.

Base means the detachable bottom

portion of a child restraint system that

may remain in the vehicle to provide a

base for securing the system to a seat in

a motor vehicle.

Bead means the area of a tire below

the sidewall and in the rim contact area,

66220 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

including: bead rubber components;

bead bundle and rubber coating if

present; the body ply and its turn-up

including the rubber coating; rubber,

fabric, or metallic bead reinforcing

materials; and the inner-liner rubber

under the bead area.

Body type means the general

configuration or shape of a vehicle

distinguished by such characteristics as

the number of doors or windows, cargocarrying features and the roofline (e.g.,

sedan, fastback, hatchback).

Buckle and restraint harness means

the components of a child restraint

system that are intended to restrain a

child seated in such a system, including

the belt webbing, shield, pads, buckles,

buckle release mechanism, belt

adjusters, and belt positioning devices.

Child restraint system means any

system that meets or is offered for sale

in the United States as meeting the

definition set out in S4 of § 571.213 of

this chapter, or is offered for sale as a

child restraint system in a foreign

country.

Claim means a written request or

demand for relief, including money or

other compensation, assumption of

expenditures, or equitable relief, related

to a motor vehicle crash, accident, the

failure of a component or system of a

vehicle or an item of motor vehicle

equipment, or fire. Claim includes but is

not limited to a demand in the absence

of a lawsuit, a complaint initiating a

lawsuit, an assertion or notice of

litigation, a settlement, covenant not to

sue or release of liability in the absence

of a written demand, and a subrogation

request. A claim exists regardless of any

denial or refusal to pay it, and

regardless of whether it has been settled

or resolved in the manufacturer’s favor.

The existence of a claim may not be

conditioned on the receipt of anything

beyond the document stating a claim.

Common green tires means tires that

are produced to the same internal

specifications as a tire brand, but that

have, or may have, different external

characteristics and may be sold under

different model designations.

Consumer complaint means a

communication of any kind made by a

consumer (or other person) to or with a

manufacturer, expressing dissatisfaction

with a product, or relating the

unsatisfactory performance of a product,

or any actual or potential defect in a

product, or any event that allegedly was

caused by any actual or potential defect

in a product, but not including a claim

of any kind or a notice involving a

fatality or injury.

Counterpart vehicle means a vehicle

made in a foreign country that is

equivalent to one made in the United

States except that it may have a different

name, labeling, driver side restraints,

lighting or wheels/tires, or metric

system measurements.

Customer satisfaction campaign,

consumer advisory, recall, or other

activity involving the repair or

replacement of motor vehicles or motor

vehicle equipment means a

communication by a manufacturer to, or

made available to, more than one dealer,

distributor, lessor, lessee, other

manufacturer, or owner, in the United

States, whether in writing or by

electronic means, relating to repair,

replacement, or modification of a

vehicle, or item of equipment, or a

component of a vehicle or item of

equipment, the manner in which a

vehicle or item of equipment is to be

operated or maintained, or advice or

direction to a dealer or distributor to

cease the delivery or sale of specified

models of vehicles or equipment.

Dealer field report means a field

report from a dealer or authorized

service facility of a manufacturer of

motor vehicles or motor vehicle

equipment.

Equipment comprises original and

replacement equipment:

(1) Original equipment means an item

of motor vehicle equipment (other than

a tire) that was installed in or on a

motor vehicle at the time of its delivery

to the first purchaser if the item of

equipment was installed on or in the

motor vehicle at the time of its delivery

to a dealer or distributor for

distribution; or the item of equipment

was installed by the dealer or distributor

with the express authorization of the

motor vehicle manufacturer.

(2) Replacement equipment means

motor vehicle equipment other than

original equipment, and tires.

Field report means a communication

in writing, including communications

in electronic form, from an employee or

representative of a manufacturer of

motor vehicles or motor vehicle

equipment, a dealer or authorized

service facility of such manufacturer, or

by an entity that owns or operates a

fleet, to a manufacturer, regarding the

failure, malfunction, lack of durability,

or other performance problem of a

motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment, or any part thereof,

produced by that manufacturer,

regardless of whether verified or

assessed to be lacking in merit.

Fire means combustion of any

material in a vehicle as evidenced by,

but not limited to, flame, smoke, sparks,

or smoldering.

Fleet means more than ten motor

vehicles of the same make, model, and

model year.

Good will means the repair or

replacement of a motor vehicle or item

of motor vehicle equipment, including

labor, paid for by the manufacturer, at

least in part, when the repair or

replacement is not covered under

warranty.

Hydraulic service brakes means

service brake systems based on a

hydraulic actuation system.

Integrated child restraint system

means a factory-installed built-in child

restraint system as defined by S4 of

§ 571.213 of this chapter, or is offered

for sale as a factory-installed built-in

child restraint system in a vehicle sold

in a foreign country.

Latches means a latching system and

its components fitted to a vehicle’s

exterior door, rear hatch, liftgate,

tailgate, trunk, or hood. This includes,

but is not limited to, devices for the

remote operation of a latching device

such as remote release cables (and

associated components), electric release

devices, or wireless control release

devices.

Light vehicle means any motor

vehicle, except a bus, motorcycle, or

trailer, with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or

less.

Make means a name that a

manufacturer applies to a group of

vehicles.

Medium-heavy vehicle means any

motor vehicle, except a bus, motorcycle,

or trailer, with a GVWR greater than

10,000 lbs.

Minimal specificity means:

(1) for a vehicle, the make, model, and

model year,

(2) for a child seat, the model (either

the model name or model number),

(3) for a tire, the model and size, and

(4) for other motor vehicle equipment,

if there is a model or family of models,

the model name or model number.

Model means a name that a

manufacturer of motor vehicles applies

to a family of vehicles within a make

which have a degree of commonality in

construction, such as body, chassis or

cab type. For equipment, it means the

name that its manufacturer uses to

designate it.

Model year means, for vehicles, the

year that a manufacturer uses to

designate a discrete model of vehicle,

irrespective of the calendar year in

which the vehicle was manufactured

and if a year is not so designated, the

year the vehicle was manufactured. For

equipment, it means the year that the

equipment was manufactured.

Notice means a document received by

or prepared by a manufacturer that does

not include a demand for relief.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66221

Parking brake means a mechanism

designed to prevent the movement of a

stationary motor vehicle.

Power train means the components or

systems of a motor vehicle which

transfer motive power from the engine

to the wheels, including transmission

(manual and automatic), clutch, transfer

case, driveline, differential(s), and all

driven axle assemblies.

Property damage means physical

injury to tangible property.

Property damage claim means a claim

for property damage, excluding that part

of a claim, if any, pertaining solely to

damage to a component or system of a

vehicle or an item of equipment itself

based on the alleged failure or

malfunction of the component, system,

or item, and further excluding matters

addressed under warranty.

Reporting period means a calendar

quarter of a year, unless otherwise

stated.

Seat shell means the portion of a child

restraint system that provides the

structural shape, form and support for

the system, and for other components of

the system such as the seat padding,

shield, belt attachment points, and

anchorage points to allow the system to

be secured to a passenger seat in a motor

vehicle.

Sidewall means the area of a tire

between the tread and the bead area of

the tire, including: the sidewall rubber

components; the body ply and its

coating under the rubber in the sidewall

area; and the inner-liner rubber under

the body ply in the side areas.

Structure means any part of a motor

vehicle that serves to maintain the

shape and size of the vehicle, and which

provides attachment and connectivity of

all of the components of the vehicle,

including frame members, the body of

the vehicle, bumpers, doors, tailgate,

hatchback, trunk lid, hood, and roof.

Suspension system means the

components and systems of a motor

vehicle including but not limited to

springs, shock absorbers, and dampers,

that are designed to minimize the

impact on the vehicle chassis of shocks

from the road surface irregularities that

are transmitted through the wheels, and

to provide stability when the vehicle is

being operated through a range, of

speed, load, and dynamic conditions.

Tread (also known as crown) means

all materials in the tread area of the tire

including: the rubber that makes up the

tread; sub-base rubber, when present,

between the tread base and the top of

the belts; the belt material, either steel

and/or fabric, and the rubber coating of

the belt material, including any rubber

inserts; the body ply and its coating

rubber under the tread of the tire; and

the inner-liner rubber under the tread.

Vehicle speed control means the

systems and components of a motor

vehicle that control vehicle speed either

by command of the operator or by

automatic control, including but not

limited to the accelerator pedal,

linkages, cables, springs, speed control

devices (cruise control) and speed

limiting devices.

Visual systems means the systems and

components of a motor vehicle through

which a driver views the surroundings

of the vehicle including windshield,

side windows, back window, and rear

view mirrors, and systems and

components used to wash and wipe

windshields and back windows.

Warranty means any written

affirmation of fact or written promise

made in connection with the sale or

lease of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment by a manufacturer,

distributor, or dealer to a buyer or lessee

that relates to the nature of the material

or workmanship and affirms or

promises that such material or

workmanship is defect free or will meet

a specified level of performance over a

specified period of time (including any

extensions of such specified period of

time), or any undertaking in writing in

connection with the sale or lease by a

manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of a

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment to refund, repair, replace, or

take other remedial action with respect

to such product in the event that such

product fails to meet the specifications

set forth in the undertaking.

Warranty claim means mean any

claim presented to a manufacturer for

payment pursuant to a warranty

program, an extended warranty

program, or good will.

(d) Foreign claims and notices. For

purposes of subpart C of this part:

(1) A motor vehicle sold or in use

outside the United States is identical or

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

sold or offered for sale in the United

States if—

(i) Such a vehicle has been sold in

Canada or has been certified as

complying with the Canadian Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards;

(ii) Such a vehicle is listed in

Appendix A to part 593 of this chapter

or determined to be eligible for

importation into the United States in

any agency decision issued between

amendments to Appendix A to part 593;

(iii) Such a vehicle is manufactured in

the United States for sale in a foreign

country;

(iv) Such a vehicle is a counterpart of

a vehicle sold or offered for sale in the

United States; or

(v) Such a vehicle uses the same

vehicle platform as a vehicle sold or

offered for sale in the United States.

(2) An item of motor vehicle

equipment sold or in use outside the

United States is identical or

substantially similar to equipment sold

or offered for sale in the United States

if such equipment and the equipment

sold or offered for sale in the United

States have one or more components or

systems that are the same, regardless of

whether the part numbers are identical.

(3) A tire sold or in use outside the

United States is substantially similar to

a tire sold or offered for sale in the

United States if it has the same model

and size designation, or if it is identical

in design except for the model name.

§ 579.5 Notices, bulletins, customer

satisfaction campaigns, consumer

advisories, and other communications.

(a) Each manufacturer shall furnish to

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 pursuant to

§ 573.5(c)(9) of this chapter, sent to

more than one manufacturer,

distributor, dealer, lessor, lessee, owner,

or purchaser, in the United States,

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 any flaw or unintended

deviation from design specifications),

whether or not such defect is safetyrelated.

(b) Each manufacturer shall furnish to

NHTSA a copy of each communication

relating to a customer satisfaction

campaign, consumer advisory, recall, or

other safety activity involving the repair

or replacement of motor vehicles or

equipment, that the manufacturer issued

to, or made available to, more than one

dealer, distributor, lessee, other

manufacturer, owner, or purchaser, in

the United States.

(c) If a notice or communication is

required to be submitted under both

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, it

need only be submitted once.

(d) Each copy shall be in readable

form and shall be submitted monthly,

not more than five (5) working days

after the end of each month. Each

submission shall be accompanied by a

document identifying each

communication in the submission by

name or subject matter and date.

66222 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

§ 579.6 Address for submitting reports and

other information

Information and reports required to be

submitted to NHTSA pursuant to this

part, if submitted by mail or on CD–

ROM, must be addressed to the

Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 400

7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Information and reports may also be

submitted by electronic means to

NHTSA’s website address:

www.odi@nhtsa.dot.gov. Submissions

must be made by a means that permits

the sender to verify that the report was

in fact received by NHTSA and the day

it was received by NHTSA.

§§ 579.7—579.10 [Reserved]

Subpart B—Reporting of Defects in

Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle

Equipment in Countries Other Than the

United States

§ 579.11—579.20 [Reserved]

Subpart C—Reporting of Early

Warning Information

§ 579.21 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more light vehicles

annually.

For each reporting period, a

manufacturer whose aggregate number

of light vehicles manufactured for sale,

offered for sale, imported, or sold, in the

United States, during the calendar year

of the reporting period or during either

of the prior two calendar years is 500 or

more shall submit the following

information. For paragraphs (a) and (c)

of this section, the manufacturer shall

submit information separately with

respect to each make, model and model

year of light vehicle manufactured

during the reporting period and the nine

model years prior to the earliest model

year of the reporting period, including

models no longer in production.

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the make, the model,

the model year, the current model year

production to the end of the reporting

period, and the total model year

production for all model years for which

production has ceased. For all models

that are manufactured with more than

one type of fuel system, the information

required by this subsection shall be

reported separately for gasolinepowered vehicles and for non-gasolinepowered light vehicles.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. For all light vehicles

less than ten calendar years old at the

beginning of the reporting period:

(1) A report on each incident

involving one or more deaths or injuries

occurring in the United States that is

identified in claim(s) against the

manufacturer or in notice(s) to the

manufacturer alleging or proving that

the death or injury was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

vehicle, together with each incident

involving one or more death(s)

occurring in a foreign country that is

identified in claim(s) against the

manufacturer involving the

manufacturer’s vehicle, if that vehicle is

identical or substantially similar to a

light vehicle that the manufacturer has

offered for sale in the United States. The

report shall be organized such that

incidents are reported alphabetically by

model and within model

chronologically by model year.

(2) For each such incident described

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

make, model and model year of the

vehicle, the incident date, the number of

deaths, the number of injuries for

incidents occurring in the United

(States, the State or foreign country

where the incident occurred, each

system or component of the vehicle that

allegedly contributed to the incident,

and whether the incident involved a

fire, as follows: 01 for steering, 02 for

suspension, 03 for service brakes, 04 for

parking brakes, 05 for engine speed

control including throttle and cruise

control, 06 for airbags (including but not

limited to frontal, side, head protection,

and curtains that deploy in a crash), 07

for seat belts (including anchorages and

other related components), 08 for

integrated child restraint systems, 09 for

door, hood, or hatch latches, 10 for tires,

11 for fuel system integrity, 12 for

power train, 13 for electrical system, 14

for engine and engine cooling system,

15 for structure (other than latches), 16

for visual systems, 17 for seats, 18 for

lighting, 19 for wheels, 20 for climate

control system including defroster, 21

for trailer hitches and related

attachments, 22 for fire, and 99 if

another system or component is

allegedly involved or if the system or

component is not specified in the claim

or notice.

(c) Numbers of property damage

claims, consumer complaints, warranty

claims, and field reports. A report on

the numbers of property damage claims,

consumer complaints, warranty claims,

and field reports involving the same

systems and components of the vehicle,

and the number of incidents in which

a fire was involved, as set forth in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except

that no reporting is necessary if the

system or component involved is not

identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

(d) Documents to be submitted. For all

light vehicles less than ten calendar

years old as of the beginning of the

reporting period, a copy of each field

report (other than a dealer report) that

the manufacturer received during a

reporting period. These documents shall

be submitted alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

§ 579.22 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more mediumheavy vehicles annually.

For each reporting period, a

manufacturer whose aggregate number

of medium-heavy vehicles

manufactured for sale, offered for sale,

imported, or sold, in the United States,

during the calendar year of the reporting

period or during either of the prior two

calendar years is 500 or more shall

submit the following information. For

paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, a

manufacturer shall submit information

separately with respect to each make,

model and model year of medium-heavy

vehicle manufactured during the

reporting period and the nine model

years prior to the earliest model year in

the reporting period, including models

no longer in production.

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the make, the model,

the model year, the current model year

production to the end of the reporting

period and the total model year

production for all model years for which

production has ceased. For all models

that are manufactured with more than

one type of fuel system, the information

required by this subsection shall be

reported separately for gasolinepowered vehicles and for non-gasolinepowered medium-heavy vehicles.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. For all medium-heavy

vehicles less than ten calendar years old

at the beginning of the reporting period:

(1) A report on incidents involving

one or more deaths or injuries occurring

in the United States that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer or in

notice(s) to the manufacturer alleging or

proving that the death was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

vehicle together with each incident

involving one or more deaths occurring

in a foreign country that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer

involving the manufacturer’s vehicle, or

one that is identical or substantially

similar to a medium-heavy vehicle that

the manufacturer has offered for sale in

the United States. The report shall be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66223

organized such that incidents are

reported alphabetically by model and

within model chronologically by model

year.

(2) For each such incident described

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

make, model and model year of the

medium-heavy vehicle, the incident

date, the number of deaths, the number

of injuries for incidents occurring in the

United States, the State or foreign

country where the incident occurred,

each system or component of the

vehicle that allegedly contributed to the

incident, whether the incident involved

a fire, as follows: 21 for steering, 22 for

suspension, 23 for service brakes, 24 for

parking brake, 25 for engine and engine

cooling system, 26 for fuel system

integrity, 27 for power train, 28 for

electrical system, 29 for lighting, 30 for

visual systems, 31 for climate control

system including defroster, 32 for

airbags (including but not limited to

frontal, side, head protection, and

curtains that deploy in a crash), 33 for

seat belts (including anchorages and

other related components), 34 for

structure (other than latches), 35 for

seats, 36 for engine speed control

including cruise control, 37 for latches

(door, hood, or hatch), 38 for tires, 39

for wheels, 40 for trailer hitches and

related attachments, 41 for engine

exhaust system, 42 for fire, and 99 if

another system or component is

allegedly involved or if the system or

component is not specified in the claim

or notice.

(c) Numbers of property damage

claims, consumer complaints, warranty

claims, and field reports. A report on

the numbers of property damage claims,

consumer complaints, warranty claims,

and field reports involving the same

systems and components of the vehicle,

and the number of incidents where a

fire was involved, as set forth in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except

that no reporting is necessary if the

system or component involved is not

identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

(d) Documents to be submitted. For all

medium-heavy vehicles less than ten

calendar years old as of the beginning of

the reporting period, a copy of each

field report (other than a dealer report)

that the manufacturer received during a

reporting period. These documents shall

be submitted alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

§ 579.23 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more buses

annually.

For each reporting period, a

manufacturer whose aggregate number

of buses manufactured for sale, offered

for sale, imported, or sold, in the United

States, during the calendar year of the

reporting period or during either of the

prior two calendar years is 500 or more

shall submit the following information.

For paragraphs (a) and (c) of this

section, a manufacturer shall submit

information separately with respect to

each make, model, and model year of

bus manufactured during the reporting

period and the nine model years prior

to the earliest model year in the

reporting period, including models no

longer in production.

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the make, the model,

the model year, the current model year

production to the end of the reporting

period and the total model year

production for all model years for which

production has ceased. For all models

that are manufactured with more than

one type of fuel system, the information

required by this subsection shall be

reported separately for gasolinepowered buses and for non-gasolinepowered buses.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. For all buses less than

ten calendar years old at the beginning

of the reporting period:

(1) A report on incidents involving

one or more deaths or injuries occurring

in the United States that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer or in

notice(s) to the manufacturer alleging or

proving that the death was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

bus together with each incident

involving one or more deaths occurring

in a foreign country that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer

involving the manufacturer’s bus, or one

that is identical or substantially similar

to a bus that the manufacturer has

offered for sale in the United States. The

report shall be organized such that

incidents are reported alphabetically by

model and within model

chronologically by model year.

(2) For each such incident described

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

make, model and model year of the bus,

the incident date, the number of deaths,

the number of injuries for incidents

occurring in the United States, the State

or foreign country where the incident

occurred, each system or component of

the bus that allegedly contributed to the

incident, and whether the incident

involved a fire, as follows: 51 for

steering, 52 for suspension, 53 for

service brakes, 54 for parking brake, 55

for engine and engine cooling system,

56 for fuel system integrity, 57 for

power train, 58 for electrical system, 59

for lighting/horn/alarms, 60 for visual

systems 61 for climate control system

including defroster, 62 for airbags

(including but not limited to frontal,

side, head protection, and curtains that

deploy in a crash), 63 for seat belts

including anchorages and other related

components, 64 for structure (other than

latches), 65 for seats, 67 for engine

speed control including throttle and

cruise control, 68 for latches (door,

hood, hatch), 69 for tires, 70 for wheels,

71 for trailer hitches and related

attachments, 72 for engine exhaust

system, 73 for fire, and 99 if another

system or component is allegedly

involved or if the system or component

is not specified in the claim or notice.

(c) Numbers of property damage

claims, consumer complaints, warranty

claims, and field reports. A report on

the numbers of property damage claims,

consumer complaints, warranty claims,

and field reports involving the same

systems and components of the vehicle,

and the number of incidents in which

a fire was involved, as set forth in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except

that no reporting is necessary if the

system or component involved is not

identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

(d) Documents to be submitted. For all

buses less than ten calendar years old as

of the beginning of the reporting period,

a copy of each field report (other than

a dealer report) that the manufacturer

received during a reporting period.

These documents shall be submitted

alphabetically by model and within

model chronologically by model year.

§ 579.24 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more motorcycles

annually.

For each reporting period, a

manufacturer whose aggregate number

of motorcycles manufactured for sale,

offered for sale, imported, or sold, in the

United States, during the calendar year

of the reporting period or during either

of the prior two calendar years is 500 or

more shall submit the following

information. For paragraphs (a) and (c)

of this section, a manufacturer shall

submit information separately with

respect to each model and model year

of motorcycle manufactured during the

reporting period and the nine model

years prior to the earliest model year in

the reporting period, including models

no longer in production.

66224 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the make, the model,

the model year, the current model year

production to the end of the reporting

period and the total model year

production for all model years for which

production has ceased.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. For all motorcycles less

than ten calendar years old as of the

beginning of the reporting period:

(1) A report on incidents involving

one or more deaths or injuries occurring

in the United States that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer or in

notice(s) to the manufacturer alleging or

proving that the death was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

motorcycle together with each incident

involving one or more deaths occurring

in a foreign country that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer

involving the manufacturer’s

motorcycle, or one that is identical or

substantially similar to a motorcycle

that the manufacturer has offered for

sale in the United States. The report

shall be organized such that incidents

are reported alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

(2) For each such incident described

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

make, model and model year of the

motorcycle, the incident date, the

number of deaths, the number of

injuries for incidents occurring in the

United States, the State or foreign

country where the incident occurred,

each system or component of the

motorcycle that allegedly contributed to

the incident, and whether a fire was

involved, as follows: 81 for steering, 82

for suspension, 83 for service brakes, 84

for engine and engine speed control, 85

for fuel system integrity, 86 for

powertrain, 87 for electrical system, 88

for lighting 89 for structure, 90 for

engine speed control (including throttle

and cruise control, 91 for tires, 92 for

wheels, 93 for fires, and 99 if another

system or component is allegedly

involved or if the system or component

is not specified in the claim or notice.

(c) Numbers of property damage

claims, consumer complaints, warranty

claims, and field reports. A report on

the numbers of property damage claims,

consumer complaints, warranty claims,

and field reports involving the same

systems and components of the

motorcycle, and the number of incidents

in which a fire was involved, as set forth

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,

except that no reporting is necessary if

the system or component involved is

not identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

(d) Documents to be submitted. For all

motorcycles less than ten years old as of

the date of the beginning of the

reporting period, a copy of each field

report (other than a dealer report) that

the manufacturer received during a

reporting period. These documents shall

be submitted alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

§ 579.25 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of 500 or more trailers

annually.

For each reporting period, a

manufacturer whose aggregate number

of trailers manufactured for sale, offered

for sale, imported, or sold, in the United

States, during the calendar year of the

reporting period or during either of the

prior two calendar years is 500 or more

shall submit the following information.

For paragraphs (a) and (c) of this

section, a manufacturer shall submit

information with respect to each make,

model and model year of trailer

manufactured during the reporting

period and the nine model years prior

to the earliest model year in the

reporting period, including models no

longer in production.

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the make, the model,

the model year, the current model year

production to the end of the reporting

period and the total model year

production for all model years for which

production has ceased.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. For all trailers less than

ten calendar years old as of the

beginning of the reporting period:

(1) A report on incidents involving

one or more deaths or injuries occurring

in the United States that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer or in

notice(s) to the manufacturer alleging or

proving that the death was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

trailer together with each incident

involving one or more deaths occurring

in a foreign country that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer

involving the manufacturer’s trailer, or

one that is identical or substantially

similar to a trailer that the manufacturer

has offered for sale in the United States.

The report shall be organized such that

incidents are reported alphabetically by

model and within model

chronologically by model year.

(2) For each such incident described

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

make, model and model year of the

trailer, the incident date, the number of

deaths, the number of injuries for

incidents occurring in the United States,

the State or foreign country where the

incident occurred, each system or

component of the trailer that allegedly

contributed to the incident, and whether

a fire was involved, as follows: 101 for

suspension, 102 for service brakes, 103

for parking brakes, 104 for fuel system

integrity (camping/travel trailers), 105

for electrical system, 105 for lighting/

horn/alarms, 106 for climate control

systems (camping/travel trailers), 107

for structure (other than latches), 108 for

latches, 109 for tires, 110 for wheels,

111 for hitches and related attachments,

112 for 63 for tires, 113 for fire, and 99

if another system or component is

allegedly involved or if the system or

component is not specified in the claim

or notice.

(c) Numbers of property damage

claims, consumer complaints, warranty

claims, and field reports. A report on

the numbers of property damage claims,

consumer complaints, warranty claims,

and field reports involving the same

systems and components of the trailer,

and the number of incidents in which

a fire was involved, as set forth in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except

that no reporting is necessary if the

system or component involved is not

identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

(d) Documents to be submitted. For all

trailers less than ten calendar years old

as of the beginning of the reporting

period, a copy of each field report (other

than a dealer report) that the

manufacturer received during a

reporting period. These documents shall

be submitted alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

§ 579.26 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of child restraint systems.

For each reporting period, a person

who has manufactured for sale, offered

for sale, imported, or sold child restraint

systems in the United States, shall

submit the following information. For

paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, a

manufacturer shall submit information

separately with respect to each model

and model year of child restraint system

manufactured during the reporting

period and the nine model years prior

to the earliest model year in the

reporting period, including models no

longer in production.

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the make, the model,

the model year, the current model year

production to the end of the reporting

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66225

period and the total model year

production for all model years for which

production has ceased.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. For all child restraint

systems less than ten calendar years old

as of the beginning of the reporting

period:

(1) A report on incidents involving

one or more deaths or injuries occurring

in the United States that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer or in

notice(s) to the manufacturer alleging or

proving that the death was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

child restraint system together with

each incident involving one or more

deaths occurring in a foreign country

that is identified in claim(s) against the

manufacturer involving the

manufacturer’s child restraint system, or

one that is identical or substantially

similar to a child restraint system that

the manufacturer has offered for sale in

the United States. The report shall be

organized such that incidents are

reported alphabetically by model and

within model chronologically by model

year.

(2) For each such incident described

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

make, model and model year of the

child restraint system, the incident date,

the number of deaths, the number of

injuries for incidents occurring in the

United States, the State or foreign

country where the incident occurred,

and each system or component of the

child restraint system that allegedly

contributed to the incident and whether

a fire was involved, as follows: 121 for

buckle and restraint harness, 122 for

seat shell, 123 for handle, 124 for base,

and, only for incidents of death, 99 if

another component is involved or if the

component is not specified in the

complaint, claim, or report.

(c) Documents to be submitted. For all

child restraint systems less than ten

years old as of the beginning of the

reporting period, a copy of each field

report (other than a dealer report) that

the manufacturer received during the

reporting period. These documents shall

be submitted alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

§ 579.27 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of tires.

For each reporting period, a person

who has manufactured for sale, offered

for sale, imported, or sold, in the United

States, tires shall submit the following

information. For paragraphs (a) and (b)

of this section, a manufacture shall

submit separately for each model and

model year produced during the

reporting period and the nine calendar

years prior to the earliest model year in

the reporting period including models

no longer in production. If the number

of tires of the same size and design

manufactured or imported does not

exceed 15,000 tires in any single

calendar year, the manufacturer shall

report only information on incidents

involving a death with respect to such

tires, as specified in paragraph (b) of

this section.

(a) Production information.

Information that states the

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly

reporting period, the tire model, the tire

size, the plant where manufactured, the

common green application, the serial

code, the ‘‘SKU’’ code, application

(original or replacement tire) and if

original, the make model, and model

year of the vehicle on which it is

original equipment, production year,

and warranty and total production

information for the current production

year and for all production years for

which manufacture has ceased.

(b) Information on incidents involving

death or injury. (1) A report on

incidents involving one or more deaths

or injuries occurring in the United

States that are identified in claims

against the manufacturer or in notices to

the manufacturer alleging or proving

that the death was caused by a possible

defect in the manufacturer’s tire

together with incidents involving one or

more death(s) occurring in foreign

countries that is identified in claims

against the manufacturer involving the

manufacturer’s tire, or one that is

identical or substantially similar to a

tire that the manufacturer has offered for

sale in the United States. The report

shall be organized such that incidents

are reported alphabetically by model

and within model chronologically by

model year.

(2) For each such incident, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

tire model, size of the tire, the DOT

identification code, the incident date,

the number of deaths, the number of

injuries for incidents occurring in the

United States, the State or foreign

country where the incident occurred,

the make, model and model year of the

vehicle on which the tire was installed,

and each component of the tire

allegedly involved and/or failure

allegedly involved in the incident, as

follows: 131 for tread, 132 for sidewall,

133 for bead, and, only for incidents of

death, 99 if another component is

allegedly involved, or if the component

is not specified in the claim.

(c) Numbers of property damage

claims, field reports, and warranty

claims (adjustments). For all tires less

than five calendar years old as of the

date of the reporting period, for each tire

model, the tire size, the SKU serial code,

manufacturing plant, whether the

application is as original or replacement

tire, if original equipment, the make,

model, and model year of the vehicle on

which the tire was installed. The

manufacturer shall separately report

information on the number of property

damage claims, field reports, and

warranty claims (adjustments),

involving the component of the tire or

problem referred to in the claim, as

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

§ 579.28 Reporting requirements for

manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles

annually, for manufacturers of original

equipment, and for manufacturers of

replacement equipment, other than child

restraint systems and tires.

(a) Applicability. This section applies

to all manufacturers of motor vehicles

that are not required to file a report

pursuant to §§ 579.21 through 579.25 of

this part, to all manufacturers of original

equipment, and to all manufacturers of

replacement equipment other than

manufacturers of tires and child

restraint systems.

(b) Information on incidents involving

deaths. For each reporting period, a

manufacturer to which this section

applies shall submit a report, pertaining

to vehicles and/or equipment

manufactured or sold during the

calendar year of the reporting period

and the nine calendar years prior to the

reporting period, including models no

longer in production, on each incident

involving one or more deaths occurring

in the United States that is identified in

claim(s) against the manufacturer or in

notice(s) to the manufacturer alleging or

proving that the death was caused by a

possible defect in the manufacturer’s

vehicle or equipment, together with

each incident involving one or more

death(s) occurring in a foreign country

that is identified in claim(s) against the

manufacturer involving the

manufacturer’s vehicle or equipment, if

it is identical or substantially similar to

a vehicle or item of equipment that the

manufacturer has offered for sale in the

United States. The report shall be

organized such that incidents are

reported alphabetically by model and

within model chronologically by model

year.

(c) For each such incident, the

manufacturer shall separately report the

model and model year of the vehicle or

equipment, the incident date, the

number of deaths, the State or foreign

country where the incident occurred,

and each system or component of the

66226 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

vehicle or equipment that allegedly

contributed to the incident, and whether

a fire was involved, as follows:

(1) For light vehicles, the system or

component involved, and fire, shall be

identified as specified in § 579.21(b)(2)

of this part.

(2) For medium-heavy vehicles, the

system or component involved, and fire,

shall be identified as specified in

§ 579.22(b)(2) of this part.

(3) For buses, the system or

component involved, and fire, shall be

identified as specified in § 579.23(b)(2)

of this part.

(4) For motorcycles, the system or

component involved, and fire, shall be

identified as specified in § 579.24(b)(2)

of this part.

(5) For trailers, the system or

component involved, and fire, shall be

identified as specified in § 579.25(b)(2)

of this part.

(6) For original and replacement

equipment, a written identification of

the alleged component or fire involved,

in the manufacturer’s own words.

§ 579.29 Due date of reports, and other

provisions.

(a) Due date of reports. Each

manufacturer of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment shall submit

each report that is required by this

subpart not later than 30 days after the

last day of the reporting period.

(b) One-time reporting of historical

information. No later than the date that

each manufacturer subject to §§ 579.21

through 579.27 of this part must submit

its first reports under those sections

(April 30, 2003), the manufacturer shall

also file corresponding reports,

providing information on the numbers

of property damage claims, consumer

complaints, warranty claims, and field

reports that it received in each calendar

quarter from January 1, 2000 to

December 31, 2002 for vehicles

manufactured in model years 1994

through 2003, for child restraint systems

manufactured on or after January 1,

1998, and for tires manufactured on or

after January 1, 1998. Each report shall

include production data, as specified in

paragraph (a) of §§ 579.21 through

579.27 of this part and shall identify the

alleged system or component related to

the claim, incident, and other

information, as specified in paragraph

(c) of §§ 579.21 through 579.27 of this

part.

(c) Minimal specificity. A claim or

notice involving death, a claim or notice

involving injury, a claim involving

property damage, a consumer

complaint, a warranty claim, a

consumer complaint, or a field report

need not be reported if it does not

identify the vehicle or equipment with

minimal specificity. If a manufacturer

initially receives a claim, notice, or

report in which the vehicle or

equipment is not identified with

minimal specificity, and subsequently

obtains information that provides the

requisite information needed to identify

the product with minimal specificity the

claim, etc. shall be deemed to have been

received at that time.

(d) Abbreviations. Whenever a

manufacturer is required to identify a

State in which an incident occurred, the

manufacturer shall use the two-letter

abbreviations established by the United

States Postal Service (e.g., AZ for

Arizona). Whenever a manufacturer is

required to identify a foreign country in

which an incident occurred, the

manufacturer shall use the Englishlanguage name of the country in nonabbreviated form

(e) Claims of confidentiality. If a

manufacturer claims that any of the

information, data, or documents that it

submits is entitled to confidential

treatment, it must make such claim in

accordance with part 512 of this

chapter. If a manufacturer submits a

document that contain personal

information about a person or persons,

including but not limited to names,

addresses, telephone numbers, driver

licenses, credit cards, social security

numbers or medical information, the

manufacturer shall, at the same time,

submit a copy of such document from

which all such personal information has

been redacted.

(f) Additional related information that

NHTSA may request. In addition to

information required periodically under

this subpart, NHTSA may request other

information that may help identify a

defect related to motor vehicle safety.

§ 579.30 Manner of reporting.

(a) Form of reports submitted. (1) All

reports required under paragraphs (a)

through (c) of §§ 579.21 through 579.27

of this part shall be formatted by a

manufacturer in either a Microsoft Excel

spread sheet, or in a form readily

importable into an Excel spread sheet,

using the version of Excel that is current

at the time the report is filed. The report

shall be submitted to NHTSA’s website

address: www.odi@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Alternatively, the report may be

submitted to NHTSA on a CD–ROM,

using the mailing address set forth in

§ 579.6 of this part. The report shall use

the data elements specified in §§ 579.21

through 579.27 of this part. For data

files smaller than the size limit of the

Internet e-mail server of the Department

of Transportation, a manufacturer may

submit a report as an attachment to an

e-mail message.

(2) Reports submitted under § 579.28

of this part may be submitted either in

the form specified in paragraph (a)(1) of

this section or as a paper document.

(b) Form of documents submitted. A

copy of a document may be submitted

as a photocopy of the document, or in

digital form sent by electronic mail, on

a computer diskette, or on a CD–ROM.

(c) Designation of manufacturer

contact. At the time of its first

submission, each manufacturer must

designate by name, office telephone

number, mailing address, and electronic

mail address, an employee whom

NHTSA may contact for resolving issues

that may arise concerning submissions

of reports and documents required by

this subpart. The manufacturer shall

promptly notify NHTSA of any changes

in this information.

Issued on: December 14, 2001.

Kathleen C. DeMeter,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 01–31382 Filed 12–17–01; 4:33 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P