[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64087-64093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573 and 577

[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-11108]
RIN 2127-AI23


Motor Vehicle Safety; Acceleration of Manufacturer's Remedy 
Program

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend regulations that pertain to 
manufacturers' remedies for defective or noncomplying motor vehicles 
and replacement equipment in order to implement Section 6(a) of the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act. Section 6(a) provides that the Secretary of Transportation 
may require a manufacturer to accelerate the manufacturer's remedy 
program if the Secretary determines that it is not likely to be capable 
of completion within a reasonable time and the Secretary finds: there 
is a risk of serious injury or death if the remedy program is not 
accelerated; and that acceleration of the remedy program can be 
reasonably achieved by expanding the sources of replacement parts, 
expanding the number of authorized repair facilities, or both.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before February 11, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
You may also submit your comments electronically by logging onto the 
Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 
``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for 
filing the document electronically.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the 
docket number of this document in your comments.
    You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the 
Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for non-legal issues, Jonathan White, 
Office of Defects Investigation, NSA-11, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, telephone (202) 366-5227; for legal issues, 
Michael T. Goode, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-10, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, telephone (202) 366-5263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 1, 2000, the TREAD Act, Pub. L. 106-414, was enacted. 
The statute was, in part, and as it relates to the specific provision 
discussed below, a response to congressional concerns related to 
manufacturers' delays in repairing or replacing motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment that contain a safety-related defect or fail to 
comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).
    Under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), the agency may make a final decision that 
a motor vehicle or replacement equipment contains a defect related to 
motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 30118(c), a 
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment is required to 
notify the agency when it determines, or should determine, that a 
vehicle or equipment contains a defect that is related to motor vehicle 
safety or the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable 
safety standard.
    Under both circumstances, the manufacturer is required to notify 
owners, purchasers and dealers of the defect or noncompliance, and to 
provide a remedy without charge. Section 30119 sets forth statutory 
requirements for owner notification and requires the manufacturer to 
give such notice within a reasonable time. See also 49 CFR part 577. 
However, if a final decision has been rendered under section 30118(b), 
then the Secretary prescribes the date by which the manufacturer must 
provide notification.
    49 U.S.C. 30120 further provides that a manufacturer of a 
noncompliant or defective motor vehicle or replacement equipment must 
repair it or replace it with an identical or reasonably equivalent 
vehicle or equipment or, in the case of a vehicle, refund the purchase 
price less depreciation. Under section 30120(c), if a manufacturer 
decides to repair a defective or noncomplying motor vehicle or 
replacement equipment and the repair was not done adequately within a 
reasonable time, the manufacturer is required to replace the vehicle or 
equipment without charge or, for a vehicle, refund the purchase price. 
Failure to repair within 60 days after its presentation to a dealer is 
prima facie evidence of failure to repair or replace within a 
reasonable time. The agency can extend the 60-day period. This

[[Page 64088]]

section also requires the manufacturer to submit its program for 
remedying a defect or noncompliance to the agency.
    49 CFR 573.5(c)(8) requires a manufacturer, as part of its defect 
and noncompliance information reports submitted to NHTSA, to provide a 
description of the manufacturer's program for remedying the defect or 
noncompliance. In 1995, NHTSA amended that section to require a 
manufacturer to advise NHTSA of the estimated date on which it will 
begin sending notifications to owners of the defect or noncompliance 
and that a remedy without charge will be available, as well as the 
estimated date when the notification campaign will be completed. 
Section 573.5(c)(8)(ii). In the preamble to the proposed rule that led 
to the amendment, NHTSA explained that there had been an increase in 
the number of recalls in which there was a significant delay in the 
commencement of the remedy campaign, and, in some instances, an 
inordinate extension of the duration of the campaign. NHTSA further 
explained that the amendment was necessary in order to assure that the 
timing and duration of remedy campaigns were appropriate, and also for 
NHTSA to be able to respond more fully to public questions about the 
timing of recalls. 58 FR 30817, September 27, 1993.
    Section 6(a) of the TREAD Act added a new paragraph (3) to 49 
U.S.C. 30120(c), which provides that if the Secretary determines that a 
manufacturer's remedy program is not likely to be capable of completion 
within a reasonable time, the Secretary may require the manufacturer to 
accelerate the remedy program if the Secretary finds: There is a risk 
of serious injury or death if the remedy program is not accelerated; 
and acceleration of the remedy program can be reasonably achieved by 
expanding the sources of replacement parts, expanding the number of 
authorized repair facilities, or both.
    The agency expects that in the vast majority of recalls, this 
provision will not be invoked, primarily because in most cases 
manufacturers implement and complete their remedy programs within 
reasonable times under the circumstances.
    While 49 U.S.C. 30120(c)(3) is effective in the absence of 
rulemaking, it provides that the Secretary may prescribe regulations to 
carry it out.
    The authority to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United 
States Code, under which the rules directed by the TREAD Act are to be 
issued, has been delegated to NHTSA's Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 
1.50.
    Pursuant to the authorization in 49 U.S.C. 30120(c)(3), we are 
proposing to amend 49 CFR part 573 to add a new section 573.4. We are 
also proposing to amend 49 CFR part 577 to add a new section 577.12. 
Below is a summary and explanation of today's proposed rule.

II. Discussion

A. Who Would Be Required To Comply With Today's Proposal?

    This rule would apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and 
replacement equipment whose products have been determined to contain a 
safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a FMVSS. The agency had 
identified the manufacturing entities who are covered by 49 U.S.C. 
30118-30120 in 49 CFR 573.3(a). In view of the above, we are proposing 
that section 573.3(a)-(f) apply to today's proposed regulation as well.

B. Under What Circumstances May the Administrator Require A 
Manufacturer To Accelerate Its Remedy Program?

    The decision to require a manufacturer to accelerate its remedy 
program would be a discretionary decision by the Administrator. We are 
proposing that, to invoke this provision, the Administrator would be 
required to make two findings and one determination.
    Under today's proposed regulation, one required finding, which 
would be adopted from the statute, would be that there is a risk of 
serious injury or death if the remedy program is not accelerated. To 
make this finding, there need only be a risk of such injury or death, 
not necessarily a high probability, and most safety recalls address 
circumstances where there is such a risk.
    Second, with respect to the statutory requirement of a finding that 
``acceleration of the remedy program can be reasonably achieved by 
expanding the sources of replacement parts, expanding the number of 
authorized repair facilities, or both,'' we likewise propose to adopt 
this statutory phrase as part of the rule.
    With regard to the potential expansion of the sources of 
replacement parts, this finding is most likely to be made when a 
substantial aftermarket supply capability exists. For example, there 
are substantial numbers of quality aftermarket parts such as tires, 
brake rotors, steering and suspension components, and ignition 
components that can be used on many, if not most, vehicles. Thus, for 
example, if we were to find that an undue delay in completion of a 
remedy campaign was due to a manufacturer's inability to produce a 
sufficient number of brake rotors from its own plants or from its own 
suppliers, we could require the manufacturer to utilize, or allow 
owners to utilize, brake rotors from other sources that were 
appropriate for use on the vehicles in question. On the other hand, it 
is less likely that this finding would be made where there is no or 
little aftermarket supply capability for the defective components, such 
as air bag control units and many ABS brake control units, since the 
particular specifications of the remedy part may be unique to the 
particular vehicle or supplier. However, even when there is no 
aftermarket production of the part to be used as a remedy, the 
manufacturer may have the ability to expand the sources of replacement 
parts, such as by contracting with additional suppliers. In addition, 
in keeping with the congressional goal of assuring that a remedy be 
provided within a reasonable time, under today's proposal, the addition 
of assembly lines and/or production shifts within a factory would also 
be an expansion of the source of the parts within the meaning of 
section 30120(c)(3)(B).
    With regard to the expansion of the number of authorized repair 
facilities, we note that major vehicle manufacturers have large 
networks of dealers to perform repairs. Ordinarily, we would not expect 
to make a finding reflecting the need for these major manufacturers to 
expand the number of authorized repair facilities. Other vehicle 
manufacturers, such as importers of limited-production vehicles and 
multistage vehicle manufacturers, and most manufacturers of equipment 
items do not have established networks of repair facilities. There have 
been instances in which an owner would have to travel a large distance 
to obtain the remedy repair directly from the manufacturer or one of 
its dealers. This may cause a consumer to delay or even forego the 
repair. Under the proposed rule we could require such manufacturers to 
expand the number of repair facilities in order to assure that the 
campaign is completed in a reasonable time.
    Third, with respect to the need for a determination, required by 
statute, that a manufacturer's remedy program is not likely to be 
capable of completion within a reasonable time, we propose that 
reasonableness would be decided in light of all of the circumstances, 
including the efforts that the manufacturer has made to complete the 
remedy program, as well as the safety risks associated with the defect 
or noncompliance.

[[Page 64089]]

    The statute is silent with respect to when we can require a 
manufacturer to accelerate its program under section 6(a). In the 
interests of motor vehicle safety, we believe it appropriate to impose 
such a requirement at any time that the statutory conditions are found 
to exist.
    We also anticipate that there would be consultation between NHTSA 
and the manufacturer before a manufacturer would be formally required 
to accelerate the remedy program, but such consultation is not required 
by the statute. We further anticipate that in most cases in which we 
believed that acceleration was appropriate, the manufacturer would take 
action without being directed to do so by the agency.

C. How Would Acceleration Affect the Nature or Quality of the Remedy?

    We would require manufacturers to assure that replacement parts 
from additional suppliers used under accelerated remedy programs are 
equivalent to the remedy parts supplied by the manufacturer, so that 
there will be no difference in the quality of the remedy received by 
owners. However, in those instances where parts are purchased from 
manufacturers other than those who would ordinarily supply parts for 
the vehicle in question, it may be difficult to determine whether or 
not the part is equivalent. We are proposing that we would have the 
authority, in appropriate cases, to require manufacturers to provide 
information to owners with respect to any differences among different 
brands of replacement parts.
    For tires, we believe that there are guidelines available to assure 
that the tires from alternative sources are at least equivalent. The 
Uniform Tire Quality Grading System (UTQGS) sets forth three criteria 
that buyers can use to make relative comparisons among tires. See 49 
CFR 575.104. The manufacturer would be required to provide tires of a 
size and type that are suitable for the owner's vehicle and of the same 
or better UTQGS rating in each category. Alternatively, a manufacturer 
could do what Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) did in connection 
with the recent recall of millions of Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT 
tires. Firestone authorized owners to obtain replacement tires of their 
choice from any tire manufacturer, and agreed to reimburse the owner up 
to a specified amount per tire. Of course, the reimbursement amount 
would have to be sufficient to allow for the purchase of a tire that is 
reasonably equivalent to the defective or noncompliant tire.
    As previously indicated, if warranted under the circumstances, we 
could require a manufacturer to add additional suppliers and/or 
production lines and/or production shifts in order to increase the 
number of available remedy parts. In those cases in which the 
manufacturer identified supplemental repair facilities, it would have 
to assure that the facility had the parts and expertise needed to 
adequately perform the remedy.

D. What Would the Manufacturer Be Required To Do After Being Required 
To Accelerate Its Remedy Program?

    The manufacturer would be required to implement the accelerated 
remedy program as required by the agency. The level of detail and 
direction may vary. It may include expanding the sources of replacement 
parts provided to the manufacturer's franchised dealers, expanding the 
number of authorized repair facilities to include facilities not owned 
or franchised by the manufacturer that have repair or replacement 
capabilities. It may include both or other provisions. It may require 
submission of implementation plans and schedules. Particularly where 
non-owned or non-franchised facilities are involved, it may include 
reimbursement requirements, which, are discussed below.

E. What Notice Would the Manufacturer Be Required To Send To Vehicle or 
Equipment Owners?

    This would depend upon the circumstances. If the manufacturer has 
not sent an initial notification to owners under 49 CFR part 577, 
relevant information about alternative parts or authorized repair 
facilities could be included in the initial notification letter. If the 
manufacturer has sent an initial notification to owners under 49 CFR 
part 577, the manufacturer would normally be required to send a 
supplemental letter to all owners except those who have had the remedy 
performed. Proposed section 577.12 would apply to the scope, timing, 
form, and content of the notice to be sent by the manufacturer.

F. Accelerated Remedy Programs Involving Reimbursement

    In some circumstances, the remedy program could be accelerated 
without any payment by owners, and there would therefore be no need for 
reimbursement. In these instances, appropriate financial arrangements 
would be made between the manufacturer and the dealer or repair 
facility. For example, when a vehicle is repaired at a dealer who is 
franchised or authorized by the vehicle manufacturer or when the parts 
in question (e.g., a tire) are provided by a facility owned or 
franchised by the manufacturer, the manufacturer would reimburse the 
dealer for the cost of the parts as well as labor, and the owner would 
not make a payment. However, in other circumstances, the accelerated 
program might be structured to allow an owner to obtain the remedy from 
independent third-party parts suppliers and/or repair facilities, pay 
that independent entity, and then be reimbursed by the manufacturer.
    Reimbursement under an accelerated remedy program would be similar 
in most respects to the applicable provisions of our proposed 
regulation implementing section 6(b) of the TREAD Act, codified as the 
third and fourth sentences of 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) (``pre-notification 
remedy''). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we have 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement that 
section. Of course, there are two obvious differences. The effective 
periods of the respective programs are different. Under the pre-
notification remedy program, reimbursement may be available for 
expenditures before notification of a defect or noncompliance. Under an 
acceleration of remedy program, reimbursement may be available for 
expenditures after notification, as provided in the program. Second, 
under the pre-notification remedy program, reimbursement may be 
available for a range of remedies that addressed the underlying 
problem. Under an acceleration of remedy program, reimbursement may not 
be available at all under the program, and when it is, it may be 
conditioned on use of a specific remedy. In addition, the acceleration 
of remedy program may limit the owner to obtaining the remedy at 
specific service facilities. However, these substantive differences do 
not affect the application of the general procedures for reimbursement 
in the pre-notification remedy program. The provisions pertaining to 
what documentation a manufacturer may require a claimant to submit to 
obtain reimbursement would be identical to this program, as would be 
the provisions relating to the amount of reimbursement and the time 
frame for seeking reimbursement, and the method for owners to obtain a 
copy of the plan. Since the process governing reimbursement under the 
two programs would virtually be the same, we see no need to repeat the 
provisions in this proposal or discuss the provisions here. Interested 
persons are referred to our discussion of these provisions in the

[[Page 64090]]

preamble to the pre-notification remedy NPRM mentioned above. Of 
course, to the extent that we modify the proposal in that NPRM 
following public comment, we would make corresponding changes to the 
applicable provisions of the accelerated remedy rule.

G. Could a Manufacturer Terminate an Accelerated Remedy Program?

    We believe that a manufacturer should be able to terminate an 
accelerated remedy program when the conditions that gave rise to the 
accelerated program no longer exist. We do not believe that we should 
require a manufacturer to authorize the use of alternative replacement 
parts or to reimburse an owner who purchased such parts if the 
manufacturer is able to provide the recall remedy promptly. Thus, we 
are proposing that a manufacturer that believes that it can meet all 
future demand for the remedy through its own mechanisms (e.g., its 
dealers) may request the agency to authorize it to terminate the 
accelerated remedy program.
    Under the proposal, if NHTSA agrees, the manufacturer could 
terminate the program, provided that notice is given at least 30 days 
in advance of the termination date of the accelerated component of the 
remedy program to all owners of unremedied vehicles or equipment. We 
invite comment with regard to how such notice should be given.
    We are concerned that a notice terminating the accelerated aspect 
of a recall could confuse an owner or be misinterpreted by an owner as 
terminating the recall. As a result, the owner might not obtain the 
remedy, which would compromise motor vehicle safety. We request comment 
on how to avoid this result.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 
12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This rulemaking is not considered 
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. The impacts of this rule are expected to be so 
minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. 
We do not foresee substantially increased costs to the manufacturer 
because of an accelerated remedy program. First, a remedy program 
already exists. The scope of the remedy program is not being expanded. 
The only aspects being affected are the time for completion and the 
alternative sources of the remedy. Second, we expect this provision to 
be invoked infrequently, since in the large majority of cases the 
manufacturer's original remedy program will resolve the defect or 
noncompliance in a timely fashion.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also considered the impacts of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not 
have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The impacts of this rule are expected to be so minimal as not 
to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation because this 
provision only involves accelerating a manufacturer's remedy program 
and the incidence of such an occurrence is expected to be limited.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposal under the National Environmental 
Policy Act and determined that it will not have any significant impact 
on the quality of the human environment.

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has determined that this proposed rule will impose new 
collection of information burdens within the meaning of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

5. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input'' by State 
and local officials in the development of ``regulatory policies that 
have federalism implications.'' The E.O. defines this phrase to include 
regulations ``that have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' This proposed rule, which would provide for requiring 
manufacturers to accelerate a remedy program, will not have substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in E.O. 13132. This rule making does not have those implications 
because it applies to a manufacturer, and not to the States or local 
governments.

6. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have a retroactive or preemptive 
effect. Judicial review of the rule 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.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribunal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. Because this proposed rule would not have a $100 
million annual effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment is necessary and 
one will not be prepared.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:
    --Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    --Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    --Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not 
clear?
    --Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    --Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    --Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
    --What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this rule.

Submission of Comments

How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Rule?

    In developing this proposed rule, we tried to address the 
anticipated concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help 
us. We invite you to provide different views on it, new approaches we 
have not considered, new data, how this rule may affect you, or other 
relevant information. Your comments

[[Page 64091]]

will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
    Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
     Provide solid information to support your views.
     If you estimate potential numbers or reports or costs, 
explain how you arrived at the estimate.
     Tell us which parts of the rule you support, as well as 
those with which you disagree.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Refer your comments to specific sections of the rule, such 
as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory 
sections.
     Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with 
your comments.

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

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 (NCC-30), NHTSA, at the 
address given above 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 above 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 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People and Other 
Materials Relevant to This Rulemaking?

    You may view the materials in the docket for this rulemaking on the 
Internet. These materials include the written comments submitted by 
other interested persons and the preliminary regulatory evaluation 
prepared by this agency. You may read them at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the 
same location.
    You may also see the comments and materials on the Internet. To 
read them on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2000-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the materials in the docket you selected, click on the desired 
comments. You may download the comments.
    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 check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Parts 573 and 577 as set forth below.

PART 57B--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 573 of Title 49, CFR, continues 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50; 501.2.

    2. Part 573 is amended, by adding Sec. 573.14 to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 573.14  Accelerated remedy program

    (a) An accelerated remedy program is one in which the manufacturer 
expands the sources of replacement parts needed to remedy the defect or 
noncompliance, or expands the number of authorized repair facilities 
beyond those facilities that usually and customarily provide remedy 
work for the manufacturer, or both.
    (b) The Administrator may require a manufacturer to accelerate its 
remedy program if:
    (1) The Administrator finds that there is a risk of serious injury 
or death if the remedy program is not accelerated;
    (2) The Administrator finds that acceleration of the remedy program 
can be reasonably achieved by expanding the sources of replacement 
parts, expanding the number of authorized repair facilities, or both; 
and
    (3) The Administrator determines that the manufacturer's remedy 
program is not likely to be capable of completion within a reasonable 
time.
    (c) The Administrator, in deciding whether to require the 
manufacturer to accelerate a remedy program and what to require the 
manufacturer to do, may consider a wide range of information, 
including, but not limited to, the following: the manufacturer's 
initial or revised report submitted under Sec. 573.5(c), information 
from the manufacturer, information from other manufacturers and 
suppliers, information from any source related to the availability and 
implementation of the remedy, and the seriousness of the

[[Page 64092]]

risk of injury or death associated with the defect or noncompliance.
    (d) As required by the Administrator, an accelerated remedy program 
shall include the manner of acceleration (the expansion of the sources 
of replacement parts, expansion of the number of authorized repair 
facilities, or both), may identify the parts to be provided and/or the 
sources of those parts, may require the manufacturer to notify the 
agency and owners about any differences among different sources or 
brands of parts, may require the manufacturer to identify additional 
authorized repair facilities, and may specify additional owner 
notifications related to the program. The Administrator may also 
require the manufacturer to include a program to provide reimbursement 
to owners who incur costs to obtain the recall remedy from sources that 
are not reimbursed by the manufacturer.
    (e) Under an accelerated remedy program, the remedy that is 
provided shall be equivalent to the remedy that would have been 
provided if the program had not been accelerated. The replacement parts 
used to remedy the defect or noncompliance shall be reasonably 
equivalent to those that would have been used if the remedy program 
were not accelerated. The service procedures shall be reasonably 
equivalent. In the case of tires, the replacement tire shall be the 
same size and type as the defective or noncompliant tire, shall be 
suitable for use on the owner's vehicle, and for passenger car tires, 
shall have the same or better rating in each of the three categories 
enumerated in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System. See 49 CFR 
575.104. For child restraint systems, any replacement shall be of the 
same type and the same overall quality.
    (f) In those instances where the accelerated remedy program 
provides that an owner may obtain the remedy from a source other than 
the manufacturer or its dealers or authorized facilities by paying for 
the remedy and/or its installation, the manufacturer shall reimburse 
the owner for the cost of obtaining the remedy as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. Under these 
circumstances, the accelerated remedy program shall include, to the 
extent required by the Administrator:
    (1) A description of the remedy and costs that are eligible for 
reimbursement, including identifying the equipment and/or parts and 
labor for which reimbursement is available;
    (2) Identification, with specificity or as a class, of the 
alternative repair facilities at which reimbursable repairs may be 
performed, including an explanation of how to arrange for service at 
those facilities; and
    (3) Other provisions assuring appropriate reimbursement that are 
consistent with those set forth in Sec. 573.13, including but not 
limited to provisions regarding the procedures and needed documentation 
for making a claim for reimbursement, the amount of costs to be 
reimbursed, the office to which claims for reimbursement shall be 
submitted, the requirements on manufacturers for acting on claims for 
reimbursement, and the methods by which owners can obtain information 
about the program.
    (g) In response to a manufacturer's request, the Administrator may 
authorize a manufacturer to terminate its accelerated remedy program if 
the Administrator concludes that the manufacturer can meet all future 
demands for the remedy through its own sources in a prompt manner. The 
manufacturer shall provide individual notice of the termination of the 
program to all owners of unremedied vehicles and equipment at least 30 
days in advance of the termination date in a form approved by the 
Administrator.
    (h) Each manufacturer shall implement any accelerated remedy 
program required by the Administrator according to its terms.
* * * * *
    3. Part 577 is amended by adding Sec. 577.12 to read as follows:


Sec. 577.12  Notification pursuant to an accelerated remedy program.

    (a) When the Administrator requires a manufacturer to accelerate 
its remedy program under Sec. 573.12 of this chapter, in addition to 
complying with other sections of this part, the manufacturer shall 
provide notification in accordance with this section.
    (b) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, or when the 
Administrator determines otherwise, the notification under this section 
shall be sent to the same recipients as provided by Sec. 577.7. If no 
notification has been provided to owners pursuant to this part, the 
provisions required by this section may be combined with the 
notification under Secs. 577.5 or 577.6. A manufacturer need only 
provide a notification under this section to owners of vehicles or 
items of equipment for which the defect or noncompliance has not been 
remedied.
    (c) The manufacturer's notification shall include the following:
    (1) If there was a prior notification, a statement that identifies 
it and states that this notification supplements it.
    (2) A statement that the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration has required the manufacturer to accelerate its remedy 
program and a statement of how it has been expanded (e.g., by expanding 
the sources of replacement parts and/or expanding the number of 
authorized repair facilities).
    (3) In the case of an accelerated remedy program involving repair 
through service facilities other than those owned or franchised by the 
manufacturer or through the manufacturer's authorized dealers, a 
statement that the owner may elect to obtain the remedy using 
designated service facilities other than those that are owned or 
franchised by the manufacturer or are the manufacturer's authorized 
dealers.
    (4) In the case of an accelerated remedy program involving 
replacement of parts or equipment from sources other than the 
manufacturer, a statement that the owner may elect to obtain the remedy 
using replacement parts or equipment from specified sources other than 
the manufacturer.
    (5) The following statements and information shall be included 
insofar as they are applicable:
    (i) A statement indicating whether the owner will be required to 
pay the alternative facility and/or parts supplier, as may be 
applicable, subject to reimbursement by the manufacturer;
    (ii) Identification of alternative service facilities where the 
owner may have repairs performed;
    (iii) An explanation of how to arrange for service at alternative 
service facilities; and/or
    (iv) Identification of alternative replacement parts that may be 
utilized.
    (6) If applicable, the manufacturer's notification shall include 
the following language, with the blanks filled in appropriately: ``If 
you elect to obtain the remedy [at a service facility other than the 
[manufacturer's], one of its dealers or another authorized facility] 
[and/or] [using sources of replacement parts or equipment other than 
[the manufacturer's]] and you pay for [that service] [or] [those 
parts], you will be eligible to be reimbursed for your expenditures. To 
see what costs are eligible for reimbursement and what procedures 
apply, you can review or obtain [manufacturer's] accelerated remedy 
program at [the specific Internet URL for the program], by calling 
[manufacturer] at [the manufacturer's toll-free telephone number], or 
by writing to [manufacturer] at [address].


[[Page 64093]]


    Issued on: December 5, 2001.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 01-30488 Filed 12-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P