[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27227-27231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12616]



[[Page 27227]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 577

[Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3430; Notice 10] (formerly Docket 93-68)
RIN 2127-AG27


Defect and Noncompliance Reports; Defect and Noncompliance 
Notification

May 12, 1999.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is 
seeking additional public comment with respect to its ongoing 
rulemaking to implement the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of 
the United States Code (U.S.C.) that require manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to notify their dealers 
when they or NHTSA decide that vehicles or items of equipment contain a 
defect related to motor vehicle safety or do not comply with a Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard. The amendment proposed herein would 
require a manufacturer to furnish dealers with notification of a 
safety-related defect or noncompliance in accordance with a schedule 
that is to be submitted to the agency with the manufacturer's defect or 
noncompliance report. The notification would have to be within a 
reasonable time after the manufacturer decides that the defect or 
noncompliance exists. However, if the agency finds that the public 
interest requires dealers to be notified at an earlier date than that 
proposed by the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be required to 
notify its dealers in accordance with the agency's order. The proposed 
amendment also sets forth the required content of the dealer 
notification and the manner in which such notification is to be 
accomplished.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at 
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Please 
identify the proposed collection of information for which a comment is 
provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is requested, but 
not required, that 2 copies of the comment be provided. The Docket 
Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan D. White, Office of Defects 
Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Room 5319, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 
366-5226; FAX: (202) 366-7882.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 27, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing several amendments to 
its regulations implementing the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 
concerning manufacturers' obligations to provide notification and 
remedy without charge for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle 
equipment found to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety or 
a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (58 FR 
50314). On April 5, 1995, the agency issued a final rule addressing 
most aspects of that NPRM (60 FR 17254), and on January 4, 1996, it 
amended several provisions of that final rule after receiving petitions 
for reconsideration (61 FR 274). However, NHTSA decided to delay 
issuance of the final rule on the subject of dealer notification 
because it had not resolved all the issues raised by the comments on 
that subject that had been submitted in response to the NPRM.
    The agency has now fully considered those issues. However, because 
it has tentatively decided to revise its original proposal 
significantly, the agency has decided to issue a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking to obtain comments on the new proposal.

Statutory Framework

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c), a manufacturer of motor vehicles or 
replacement equipment for motor vehicles must notify NHTSA and owners, 
purchasers, and dealers if it decides in good faith that a safety-
related defect or noncompliance exists in its vehicles or items of 
equipment. This notification must be accomplished within a reasonable 
time after the manufacturer decides that the defect or noncompliance 
exists. 49 U.S.C. 30119(c)(2). Similarly, if NHTSA decides, pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 30118(b), that vehicles or equipment items contain a safety-
related defect or noncompliance, the agency must order the manufacturer 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect or 
noncompliance by a date prescribed by NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 30119(c)(1). 
Section 30119(d)(4) of Title 49 specifies that manufacturers are to 
notify their dealers ``by certified mail or quicker means if 
available.''
    These statutory provisions were originally enacted in 1974. Soon 
afterwards, NHTSA promulgated regulations addressing the duty to notify 
the agency and to notify owners and purchasers. 49 CFR Parts 573 and 
577. However, the agency did not issue regulations addressing dealer 
notification.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 30120(i), which was enacted as part of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, if a 
manufacturer has provided notification to a motor vehicle dealer that a 
new motor vehicle or new item of replacement equipment in the dealer's 
possession contains a safety-related defect or noncompliance, the 
dealer may sell or lease the vehicle or equipment item only if the 
defect or noncompliance has been remedied before delivery under the 
sale or lease. This section was recently amended to clarify that this 
requirement also applies to equipment dealers. See section 7106(a) of 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. 105-178 
(June 9, 1998).
    Under 49 U.S.C. 30116, motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors 
who do not provide dealers with the parts to remedy a safety-related 
defect or noncompliance, and all manufacturers of motor vehicle 
equipment items that have been determined to contain such a defect or 
noncompliance, must offer to repurchase all such vehicles and equipment 
items that remain in distributor or dealer inventory at the price paid, 
plus transportation and other charges.
    Heretofore, NHTSA has not adopted regulations addressing the 
provisions of section 30120(i) or section 30116.

Dealer Notification in the NPRM

    With respect to dealer notification, the September 1993 NPRM 
proposed that manufacturers conducting a safety recall provide their 
dealers with a document that contained the information set forth in the 
report submitted to the agency pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect 
and Noncompliance Reports,'' within five working days after submitting 
the report to NHTSA. If any of the required information was not known 
at the time of the original notification, it would have to be sent to 
the dealers as soon as possible after it became known by the 
manufacturer. The NPRM also proposed recordkeeping requirements.
    NHTSA received comments on the dealer notification proposals in 
that

[[Page 27228]]

NPRM from manufacturer and dealer associations, individual 
manufacturers, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. After 
considering those comments, NHTSA prepared a draft of a final rule. 
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the agency published a Federal 
Register notice requesting public comment on the potential paperwork 
burdens associated with the proposed final rule. 62 FR 63598 (December 
1, 1997). Although that notice did not set out the anticipated 
regulatory language, it described the general approach that the agency 
was planning to adopt in the final rule. Comments objecting to the 
paperwork burdens and criticizing the agency's approach were submitted 
by manufacturer and dealer associations. In addition, representatives 
of those associations met with agency officials during March 1998 to 
discuss these issues. Memoranda summarizing those meetings have been 
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

NHTSA's Revised Proposal

    After considering the information presented in all of the comments 
and at those meetings, the agency is now proposing a different 
regulatory approach. In lieu of the fixed five-day period for dealer 
notification contemplated in the NPRM, the agency is now proposing to 
require manufacturers to notify their dealers of safety defects and 
noncompliances in accordance with a schedule submitted to the agency 
with the manufacturer's Part 573 report. Such a schedule will be 
reviewable by NHTSA to assure that the notification will be within a 
reasonable time.
    This decision to permit greater flexibility than originally 
proposed is based on NHTSA's recognition that the process of dealer 
notification has worked well for over 20 years, notwithstanding the 
absence of formal regulatory requirements. In conformity with the 
statutory duty to notify dealers within a ``reasonable time'' (49 
U.S.C. 30119(c)(2)), manufacturers have generally notified their 
dealers of defects and noncompliances in a manner that has allowed 
repairs to be performed promptly, with minimal disruption of the 
dealers' operations.
    Where manufacturers have concluded that a defect or noncompliance 
presented an immediate safety risk, they have notified their dealers as 
soon as the defect or noncompliance determination was made, and have 
directed the dealers to stop sales (and leases) until the problem is 
corrected. On occasion, however, NHTSA and a manufacturer have 
disagreed about when notification should occur or whether immediate 
notification and immediate cessation of sales is appropriate. For this 
reason, the agency needs to know the manufacturer's proposed schedule 
for dealer notification so it can assess the safety implications of 
that schedule. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing a new section 
573.5(c)(8)(iii), which would require the manufacturer to include the 
estimated date of its dealer notification in its Part 573 defect or 
noncompliance report, in the same manner as section 573.5(c)(8)(ii) 
currently requires the submission of the manufacturer's proposed 
schedule for its owner notification and remedy campaign. In addition, 
to eliminate the possibility that any disagreements between NHTSA and 
the manufacturers concerning the notification date of dealers, NHTSA is 
proposing a new section 577.7(c)(1), requires manufacturers to comply 
with a NHTSA order to notify their dealers on a specific date, if the 
agency has found that notification at that time is in the public 
interest. In making such determinations, the agency will consider such 
factors as the severity of the safety risk; the likelihood of 
occurrence of the defect or noncompliance; availability of an interim 
remedial action by the owner; whether an initial dealer inspection 
would identify suspect vehicles or equipment items; the time frame in 
which the defect will manifest itself; whether there will be a delay in 
the availability of the remedy from the manufacturer; and, in those 
recalls where a delay is expected, the anticipated length of such 
delay.
    The foregoing applies to recalls following defect and noncompliance 
determinations by the manufacturer, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(c). 
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 30119(c)(1), NHTSA has proposed in section 
577.7(d) that where a recall is ordered by the Administrator pursuant 
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), the notification to dealers must be given on or 
before the date prescribed in the Administrator's order.
    NHTSA is aware that this proposal could be construed by some as a 
step back from the proposal in the NPRM, which would have required 
manufacturers to notify dealers of all recalls within five working days 
of notifying NHTSA. However, the agency now believes that such a 
requirement could have several perverse effects. First, it could 
encourage manufactures to delay notifying NHTSA of a defect or 
noncompliance determination until the remedy was developed and a 
sufficient number of repair parts stockpiled. This would be 
particularly prejudicial in cases where owners could take steps to 
minimize the safety risk associated with the defect during the time the 
remedy was being developed.
    Second, the proposal in the NPRM could encourage dealers to create 
their own inspection and remedy procedures in order to be able to sell 
otherwise embargoed vehicles quickly if the manufacturer's remedy were 
not available. The agency believes that dealers would be less likely to 
do this if embargoes were only required in those recalls that involved 
serious, imminent safety problems, because of the obvious safety risk 
and potential financial liability.
    Finally, the agency notes that in many recalls, the safety 
consequences of the defect are unlikely to arise until the vehicle has 
been in service for an extended period of time; e.g., where the problem 
is caused by corrosion or metal fatigue. In such recalls, where repair 
parts are scarce, the proposal in the NPRM could encourage dealers to 
use those parts to fix vehicles in inventory rather than vehicles in 
service, even though the vehicles in service would be more likely to 
experience a safety problem as a result of the defect.
    Another proposed change from the original NPRM is that 
manufacturers would not be required to include in the notification to 
dealers all of the information required to be submitted to NHTSA in the 
manufacturer's Part 573 report. See 49 CFR 573.5(c). Rather, as set out 
in new proposed section 577.11(a), the notice to dealers would only 
have to include the following: a statement that identifies the 
notification as being part of a safety recall campaign, an 
identification of the vehicles or items of equipment covered by the 
recall, a description of the defect or noncompliance, and a brief 
evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle safety related to the defect or 
noncompliance. The notification would also have to include a complete 
description of the recall remedy and the estimated date on which the 
remedy will be available. Information required by this paragraph that 
is not available at the time of the dealer notification would have to 
be provided to dealers as it becomes available.
    To help effectuate 49 U.S.C. 30120(i), new section 577.11(b) 
provides that the dealer notification would have to contain an advisory 
stating that dealers are prohibited by Federal law from selling or 
leasing a new motor vehicle or new item of replacement equipment 
covered by the notification until the defect or noncompliance is 
remedied. Similarly, to assist in the implementation of 49 U.S.C. 
30116, new

[[Page 27229]]

section 577.11 (c) provides that, for equipment items, the notification 
must also inform the dealer of the manufacturer's offer to repurchase 
the defective or noncomplying equipment that remain in the dealer's 
inventory at the price paid plus transportation and other charges. 
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that such language is not necessary 
with respect to notifications regarding defects and noncompliances in 
vehicles, since vehicle manufacturers generally provide their dealers 
with parts needed to remedy the defect or noncompliance, thus obviating 
the duty to repurchase.
    The NPRM did not propose to require manufacturers to include these 
advisories in the notification sent to dealers. However, the statutory 
provisions were referenced in the NPRM, and the proposed advisories 
were alluded to in the Paperwork Reduction Act notice. All interested 
persons will now have the opportunity to comment on these provisions.
    The NPRM would have required manufacturers to maintain records to 
confirm that they notified their dealers of the defect or noncompliance 
and that the dealers received the notification. The agency has decided 
that it would be unduly burdensome, and perhaps impracticable, to 
require manufacturers to keep records reflecting that each dealer 
received the notification. Therefore, proposed new section 577.11(d) 
requires only that the manufacturer be able to verify that it has sent 
the notification to its dealers and the date of such notification.
    In response to comments by an association of equipment 
manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing two provisions to ease the burden on 
those manufacturers. First, proposed section 577.7(c)(2)(ii) provides 
that if a manufacturer of replacement equipment or tires sells its 
products to a group of retailers or distributors through a central 
office, notification to that central office will be deemed to be 
notification to the entire group. Second, proposed section 
577.7(c)(2)(iii) would allow manufacturers that provide their products 
to retail outlets through independent distributors to use that 
distribution network for dealer notification purposes, if the 
distributors agree to transmit the notification to all applicable 
retail dealers within five working days of their receipt of the 
manufacturer's notification. However, the manufacturer would bear the 
legal responsibility for ensuring that all of its dealers and retail 
outlets receive the required notification in a timely manner.
    Finally, NHTSA is also amending sections 577.1, ``Scope,'' and 
577.2, ``Purpose,'' to reflect the new dealer notification requirements 
added to Part 577.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking under Executive 
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures, and determined that it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' within the meaning of Sec. 3 of E.O. 12866 and is 
not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures.
    Manufacturers are currently required by statute to notify their 
dealers of safety defects and noncompliances. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and 
(c). Such notification must be within a ``reasonable time.'' 49 U.S.C. 
30119(c)(2). This final rule restates that requirement, adding only 
that in the event that NHTSA disagrees with the manufacturer's 
assessment of what time period is reasonable, the agency's 
determination will control.
    The agency anticipates, based on past experience, that there will 
be few disagreements on this issue. In any event, an agency order 
directing the manufacturer to accelerate its dealer notification will 
not impose any additional costs directly on the manufacturer, since the 
notification would eventually have to be made anyway.
    NHTSA recognizes that an embargo on dealer sales of defective or 
noncompliant vehicles and equipment imposes costs, and that these costs 
could be relatively high if a large number of vehicles or equipment 
items is affected or if there is a significant delay in developing and 
implementing a remedy for the defect or noncompliance. In the first 
instance, such costs would be borne by dealers, since they might have 
to maintain inventory that could not be sold. However, the ultimate 
burden would almost certainly be borne by the manufacturers, either 
through contractual provisions or pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30116, which 
requires manufacturers to provide, among other things, ``reasonable 
reimbursement of at least one percent a month of the price paid 
prorated from the date of notice of noncompliance or defect . . . .''
    To the extent that agency orders issued pursuant to this rule 
impose additional costs, those costs would be outweighed by the safety 
benefit of ensuring that dealers do not sell or lease new motor 
vehicles or new items of replacement equipment containing safety-
related defects or noncompliances before the defect or noncompliance 
has been remedied, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120(i). Moreover, any 
impacts are likely to be minimal, because manufacturers will have an 
incentive to develop and provide a remedy as soon as possible.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I 
certify that this proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The proposed new regulatory requirements would apply directly only 
to manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle 
equipment, which for the most part are not small businesses. Moreover, 
manufacturers are already required by statute to notify their dealers 
of defects and noncompliances. The only effect of the regulation is to 
require that, in relatively rare cases, manufacturers will be required 
to send notification to dealers earlier than the manufacturer had 
proposed in its Part 573 Report. Since manufacturers will generally 
have all of the required information at the time the notification is 
required, and can submit other required information as it becomes 
available, there should be no additional direct burden on manufacturers 
associated with this rule.
    As noted above, a notification that required an embargo on sales 
could have an adverse effect on dealers, which often are small 
businesses, in that the dealers would be prohibited from selling or 
leasing defective or noncompliant vehicles or equipment items that had 
not been remedied. However, for the reasons described above, the costs 
associated with such a delay would almost certainly be borne by the 
manufacturer. In any case, such costs are the result of requirements 
imposed by 49 U.S.C. 30120(i), not this rule. Moreover, any impacts are 
likely to be minimal, because manufacturers will have an incentive to 
develop and provide a remedy as soon as possible. Finally, any such 
impacts would be offset by the safety benefits associated with 
preventing the sale or lease of defective or noncompliant vehicles or 
equipment items.

[[Page 27230]]

3. National Environmental Policy Act

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
the agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rulemaking 
action and determined that implementation of this action would not have 
a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The new 
notification requirements would not introduce any new or harmful matter 
into the environment.

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains provisions which are considered to be 
information collection requirements as that term is defined by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. The reporting 
requirements associated with this proposed rule are subject to approval 
by OMB in accordance with 44 U. S. C. Chapter 3500. The agency needs 
this information in order to avoid unreasonable delays in dealers' 
receiving notification that vehicles or equipment in their inventory 
contain safety-related defects or noncompliances requiring a remedy. 
The agency will use this information to take appropriate action in 
those cases where the manufacturer's estimated dealer notification date 
seems to be inappropriate in relation to the severity of the recalled 
defect or noncompliance condition. Manufacturers will need to provide 
the agency with the estimated dealer notification date for each recall 
that they conduct. Manufacturers will only have to make the necessary 
changes to the dealer notification letter one time, since these changes 
will be replicated in all subsequent dealer notifications. The 
respondents affected by this proposal are manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The respondents do not need to 
complete any standardized forms in order to be in compliance with this 
proposal. The agency estimates that the total number of burden hours 
for all manufacturers affected by this proposal would be 250, with an 
average burden hour for each of 500 involved respondents of \1/2\ hour. 
The agency estimates that the total cost burden for all manufacturers 
affected by this proposal would be $12,500 (250 burden hours  x  $50 
per hour respondent labor cost), with an average cost burden for each 
of 500 involved respondents of $25.
    For further information contact Mr. Walter Culbreath, Office of 
Information Resources Management, NAD-40, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-1566). Individuals and 
organizations may submit comments on the proposed information 
collection requirements by June 18, 1999, and should direct them to: 
Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590, referencing the docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of 
this notice.
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and OMB's 
regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential 
individuals and organizations who are to respond to the collection of 
information that they are not required to respond to the collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The proposed amendment requiring notification of NHTSA adds to an 
information collection requirement in 49 CFR part 573 that has already 
been approved by OMB. The OMB control number for that collection of 
information is 2127-0004. The proposed amendment of 49 CFR part 577 to 
require manufacturers to include certain information in the 
notification of defect or noncompliance sent to dealers is a new 
information collection requirement (since the Paperwork Reduction Act 
did not apply to such third-party information collections prior to 
1995). Accordingly, it does not have an OMB control number. The agency 
intends to obtain a valid OMB control number prior to the promulgation 
of the final rule.

5. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

6. Executive Order 13084 (Consultation/Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, and it has been determined 
that the proposed rulemaking would not significantly or uniquely affect 
Indian tribal governments.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform

    This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 or under Executive Order 12875. It 
does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector; and 
is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the 
proposed rule.

8. Civil Justice Reform Act

    The proposed rule would not have a retroactive or preemptive 
effect. Judicial review of the proposed rule would be obtainable under 
5 U.S.C. section 702. That section does not require that a petition for 
reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 573

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 577

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that Parts 573 
and 577 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as 
follows:

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS

    1. Section 573.5 would be amended by redesignating paragraphs 
(c)(8)(iii) and (c)(8)(iv) as paragraphs (c)(8)(iv) and (c)(8)(v), 
respectively, and by adding new paragraph (c)(8)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 573.5  Defect and noncompliance information report.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) The estimated date on which it will send notifications to 
dealers that there is a safety-related defect or noncompliance. If a 
manufacturer subsequently becomes aware that such notification will be 
delayed by more than two weeks, it shall promptly advise the agency of 
the delay and the reasons therefor, and furnish a revised estimate.
* * * * *

PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

    2. Section 577.1 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 577.1  Scope.

    This part sets forth requirements for notification to owners and 
dealers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment about a 
defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or a noncompliance with a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
    3. Section 577.2 would be amended by adding a new sentence at the 
end to read as follows:


Sec. 577.2  Purpose.

    * * * It is also to ensure that dealers of motor vehicles and items 
of

[[Page 27231]]

replacement equipment are made aware of the existence of defects and 
noncompliances and of their rights and responsibilities with regard 
thereto.
    4. Section 577.7 would be amended by adding new paragraphs (c) and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 577.7  Time and manner of notification.

* * * * *
    (c) The dealer notification required by Sec. 577.11 shall--
    (1) Be furnished within a reasonable time after the manufacturer 
decides that a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or a 
noncompliance exists, in accordance with the schedule submitted to the 
agency pursuant to 49 CFR 573.5(c)(8)(iii). The manufacturer's proposed 
schedule may be reviewed by the Administrator. The Administrator may 
order a manufacturer to send the notification to dealers on a specific 
date where the Administrator finds, after consideration of available 
information, that such notification is in the public interest. The 
factors that the Administrator may consider include, but are not 
limited to, the severity of the safety risk; the likelihood of 
occurrence of the defect or noncompliance; whether a dealer inspection 
would identify vehicles or equipment items that contain the defect or 
noncompliance; whether there will be a delay in the availability of the 
remedy from the manufacturer; and, in those recalls where a delay is 
expected, the anticipated length of such delay.
    (2) Be accomplished--
    (i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor 
vehicle manufacturer, by certified mail, verifiable electronic means, 
or other more expeditious and verifiable means to all dealers.
    (ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a 
manufacturer of replacement equipment or tires, by certified mail, 
verifiable electronic means, or other more expeditious and verifiable 
means to all retailers, dealers, and purchasers of such equipment for 
purposes of re-sale. Where the manufacturer sold the recalled equipment 
to a group of retailers or distributors through a central office, 
notification to that central office will suffice for notification to 
the group.
    (iii) In those cases where a manufacturer uses independent 
distributors to provide products and information to retail outlets, the 
manufacturer may satisfy its dealer notification responsibilities by 
providing the information required by this section to its distributors, 
if those distributors agree to transmit it to all applicable retail 
dealers within five additional working days. The manufacturer shall 
retain the legal responsibility for ensuring that its dealers receive 
the information in a timely manner.
    (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, where the 
recall is being conducted pursuant to an order issued by the 
Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), the notification to dealers 
shall be given on or before the date prescribed in the Administrator's 
order.
    5. A new section 577.11 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 577.11  Dealer notification.

    (a) The notification to dealers of a safety-related defect or 
noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard shall 
contain a clear statement that identifies the notification as being 
part of a safety recall campaign, an identification of the vehicles or 
items of equipment covered by the recall, a description of the defect 
or noncompliance, and a brief evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle 
safety related to the defect or noncompliance. The notification shall 
also include a complete description of the recall remedy, and the 
estimated date on which the remedy will be available. Information 
required by this paragraph that is not available at the time of the 
dealer notification shall be provided to dealers as it becomes 
available.
    (b) The notification shall also include an advisory stating that it 
is a violation of Federal law for a dealer to sell or lease new 
vehicles or new items of replacement equipment covered by the 
notification until the defect or noncompliance is remedied.
    (c) For notifications of defects or noncompliances in items of 
motor vehicle equipment, the notification shall contain the 
manufacturer's offer to repurchase the items that remain in the 
dealer's inventory at the price paid by the dealer, plus transportation 
charges and reasonable reimbursement of at least one per cent a month 
prorated from the date of notification to the date of repurchase.
    (d) The manufacturer must be able to verify that it sent the 
required notification to each of its dealers and the date of that 
notification.

Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 99-12616 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P