[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66190-66226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31382]



[[Page 66189]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 574 et al.



Reporting of Information and Documents About Potential Defects 
Retention of Records That Could Indicate Defects; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 66190]]


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

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

[[Page 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 safety-
related 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

[[Page 66192]]

Corporation (DaimlerChrysler), the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), the Recreational Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA), Harley-Davidson 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 safety-related 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 two- 
or 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.

[[Page 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 safety-related 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 
``off-vehicle 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

[[Page 66194]]

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 
non-gasoline-powered vehicles. For medium-heavy 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 medium-heavy 
truck model was produced with different types of fuel or brake 
systems.

Production Information

MEDIUM-HEAVY TRUCKS
Reporting Period:
Manufacturer:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fuel system type  Brake system type
       Make              Model            Model year         Production        (see below)         (see below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  2003               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  2002               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  2001               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  2000               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  1999               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  1998               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  1997               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  1996               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   .................  1995               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66195]]

 
                   .................  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.

[[Page 66196]]

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

[[Page 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 in-patient 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,

[[Page 66198]]

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.

[[Page 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 under-reporting. 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

[[Page 66200]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66202]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66204]]

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

[[Page 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, king-pins 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.

[[Page 66206]]

    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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 66208]]

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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Involved
                                              Incident      Number of     Number of     State or     systems or
     Make          Model       Model year       date         deaths       injuries       foreign     components
                                                                         (U.S. only)     country     (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

[[Page 66209]]



                                                                                                             Warranty Claims
                                                       Light Vehicles
                                                       Manufacturer:
                                                       Reporting Period:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Number of reports
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Make    Model    Model                                                                                                                                                   Engine   Integrated
                    year    Steering   Suspension   Service   Parking   Engine   Fuel    Power  Electrical  Lighting  Visual  Climate   Seat     Air   Structure   Seats    speed      child    Latches   Tires  Wheels  Hitches   Fires
                                                    brakes    brakes            system   train                                control   belts   bags                      controls  restraints
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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 brake system type for each subgroup
 where more than one brake or fuel system was produced in a given make, model, and model year product line.
 
                                                                                                                Figure 3


[[Page 66210]]

    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 self-explanatory, 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

[[Page 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 pre-TREAD authority to 
request safety-related 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

[[Page 66212]]

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.

[[Page 66213]]

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 ``pre-investigation'' 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 66214]]

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 66216]]

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

[[Page 66217]]

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

    \3\ Some 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 66218]]

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 
four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. 
Example: if the docket number were ``NHTSA-2001-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.''
    (4) After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the 
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see.
    You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, 
in either TIFF or pdf format. Please note that even after the comment 
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the 
Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late 
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the 
Docket for new material.

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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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


Sec. 576.5  Basic requirements.

    As specified in Sec. 576.7:

[[Page 66219]]

    (a) Each manufacturer of motor vehicles and each manufacturer of 
child restraint systems shall retain all records described in 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 
medium-heavy 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


Sec. 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).


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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,

[[Page 66220]]

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, cargo-carrying 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 safety-related.
    (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.

[[Page 66222]]

Sec. 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: [email protected]. 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.


Secs. 579.7--579.10  [Reserved]

Subpart B--Reporting of Defects in Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle 
Equipment in Countries Other Than the United States


Sec. 579.11--579.20  [Reserved]

Subpart C--Reporting of Early Warning Information


Sec. 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 gasoline-
powered vehicles and for non-gasoline-powered 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.


Sec. 579.22  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more 
medium-heavy 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 gasoline-
powered vehicles and for non-gasoline-powered 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

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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 gasoline-
powered buses and for non-gasoline-powered 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.


Sec. 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.

[[Page 66224]]

    (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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 
Secs. 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

[[Page 66226]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 579.22(b)(2) of this 
part.
    (3) For buses, the system or component involved, and fire, shall be 
identified as specified in Sec. 579.23(b)(2) of this part.
    (4) For motorcycles, the system or component involved, and fire, 
shall be identified as specified in Sec. 579.24(b)(2) of this part.
    (5) For trailers, the system or component involved, and fire, shall 
be identified as specified in Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Secs. 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 Secs. 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 Secs. 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 English-language name of the country in non-
abbreviated 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.


Sec. 579.30  Manner of reporting.

    (a) Form of reports submitted. (1) All reports required under 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of Secs. 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: 
[email protected]. Alternatively, the report may be submitted to 
NHTSA on a CD-ROM, using the mailing address set forth in Sec. 579.6 of 
this part. The report shall use the data elements specified in 
Secs. 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 Sec. 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