Opinion ID: 186693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Regional Recalls

Text: 25 Beginning in the mid-1980s, automakers began initiating voluntary recalls on a geographically limited basis when a defect or noncompliance was caused by atypical climatic conditions. For many years, these regional recalls raised no objections from NHTSA. In June 1997, however, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance, Kenneth N. Weinstein, sent a letter to Ford Motor Company (Ford), explaining that the agency ha[d] concerns over several recent safety recalls conducted by Ford Motor Company (Ford) which were limited in terms of their geographic scope. Letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein, Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance, NHTSA, to L.W. Camp, Director of Automobile Safety and Engineering Standards, Ford (June 9, 1997), reprinted in J.A. 137. A month later the agency sent a letter to Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler). See Letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein, Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance, NHTSA, to Susan M. Cischke, Executive Director for Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler (July 9, 1997), reprinted in J.A. 136 (advising the company of NHTSA's concerns over recent safety recalls conducted by certain manufacturers). A similar letter was sent to the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers on July 10, 1997. See Letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein, Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance, NHTSA, to Philip A. Hutchinson, President and CEO, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (July 10, 1997), reprinted in J.A. 138. 26 A year later, in 1998, NHTSA sent letters to Ford and Chrysler outlining a regional recall policy. See Letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein, Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance, NHTSA, to L.W. Camp, Director of Automotive Safety and Engineering Standards, Ford (Aug. 12, 1998), reprinted in J.A. 142; Letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein, Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance, NHTSA, to Susan M. Cischke, Executive Director for Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler (Sept. 4, 1998), reprinted in J.A. 149. These two letters, and one sent to Volkswagen in June of 1999, Letter from Jonathan D. White, Chief of Recall Analysis Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, to Andreas H. Steglich, Product Compliance Team Leader, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (June 18, 1999), reprinted in J.A. 256, incorporated the text of the generic version of the 1998 letter to automakers. See Generic Version of 1998 Letter from NHTSA to Manufacturers at 1, reprinted in J.A. 80 (setting forth policy guidelines with respect to regional recalls). 27 The 1998 policy guidelines distinguish between circumstances: (1) when the consequences of the defect occur as the result of a short-term or single exposure to a particular meteorological condition; and (2) when the consequences of the defect generally occur only after long-term or recurring exposure to environmental conditions. Id. The guidelines indicate that, as to the former, a regional recall generally is not appropriate. Id. However, they also indicate that NHTSA may, in some cases, be willing to modify the manufacturer's notification duties. Id. at 2, reprinted in J.A. 81. Thus, the guidelines state that the agency may act favorably on requests by manufacturers to include language in the letters to owners of vehicles in `low-risk' states ... that indicates that the defect is unlikely to cause a safety problem if the vehicle is not exposed to the meteorological condition at issue. Id. As to defects that arise from long-term exposure, the guidelines say that if the manufacturer is able to demonstrate that the relevant environmental factor (or factors) is significantly more likely to exist in the area proposed for inclusion than in the rest of the United States, NHTSA will approve a regional recall. Id. There is a caveat that [t]he manufacturer's justification for such a proposal should be based on objective factors, and not merely on differences in complaint rates among the states. Id. 28 The guidelines also indicate that, in pursuing a regional recall, manufacturers must assure that vehicles from outside the designated area that experience a problem due to the defect are taken care of appropriately. Id. Finally, the guidelines state that the agency [has] determined that, at a minimum, vehicles originally sold in or currently registered in [20 designated] states [and the District of Columbia] must be included in any regional recall related to corrosion caused by road salt. Id. at 2-3, reprinted in J.A. 81-82. The guidelines conclude with the following words of caution: [M]anufacturers must discuss all proposals to limit the geographic scope of any recall with [Office of Defects Investigation] prior to making any public statements regarding that scope. Id. at 3, reprinted in J.A. 82.