[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12800-12804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5895]



[[Page 12799]]

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

Part VIII





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 576



Recordkeeping and Record Retention; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 12800]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 576

[Docket No. NHTSA 02-11592; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AI60


Recordkeeping and Record Retention

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This is one of three documents that NHTSA is issuing as part 
of efforts by the United States to comply with its obligations under 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) regarding the access of 
Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to the United States. The first NHTSA 
document is a draft policy statement allowing fabricating manufacturers 
to retroactively certify vehicles they originally manufactured for sale 
in countries other than the United States. The purpose of the proposed 
policy statement is to facilitate compliance by Mexico- and Canada-
domiciled motor carriers with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966, recodified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which provides 
for the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), 
requires the compliance of motor vehicles (including imported motor 
vehicles) with those standards, and requires that a label bearing a 
statement certifying that compliance be attached to each vehicle. The 
draft policy statement also facilitates compliance with a companion 
notice of proposed rulemaking by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA). In its document, FMCSA will be proposing to 
promote the effective enforcement of NHTSA's statute by requiring that 
all commercial motor vehicles operating in the United States have 
labels certifying their compliance with the FMVSSs.
    The second NHTSA document proposes an amendment that would define 
the term ``import,'' as used in the statute. In 1975, NHTSA issued an 
interpretation stating that the importation prohibition applies to the 
bringing into the United States of foreign-domiciled commercial 
vehicles that transport cargo. We are proposing a definition of the 
term ``import'' that would codify this interpretation in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.
    This third document proposes to require vehicle manufacturers who 
retroactively apply compliance certification labels to make and retain 
records identifying the vehicles they have so certified.

DATES: Comment closing date: You should submit your comments early 
enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than 
May 20, 2002.

ADDRESSES: For purposes of identification, please mention the docket 
number of this document in your comments. You may submit those comments 
in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC, 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments by 
e-mail at http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may call Docket Management at (202) 366-9324, or you may visit 
the Docket from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The 
Docket is located at the Plaza level of this building, northeast 
entrance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Mr. George Entwistle, Chief, Equipment and 
Imports Division, Certification Branch, Office of Safety Assurance, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-5291; telefax (202) 366-1024.
For legal issues: Ms. Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; telefax (202) 366-
3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. NAFTA provision for cross border operation of commercial 
motor vehicles
    B. Steps to provide for the safe implementation of the NAFTA 
provision for cross border operation of commercial motor vehicles
II. Request for comments
III. Rulemaking analyses and notices
IV. Submission of comments

I. Background

A. NAFTA Provisions for Cross Border Operation of Commercial Motor 
Vehicles

    On December 17, 1992, the United States, Canada and Mexico signed 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Following approval by 
Congress, NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994.
    Since 1982, a statutory moratorium in the United States on the 
issuance of operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers had, 
with a few exceptions, limited the operations of such carriers to 
municipalities and commercial zones along the United States-Mexico 
border (``border zone''). Annex I of NAFTA called for liberalization of 
access for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers on a phased schedule. 
Pursuant to this schedule, Mexico-domiciled charter and tour bus 
operations were to have been permitted beyond the border zone on 
January 1, 1994. Truck operations were to have been permitted in the 
four United States border states in December 1995, and throughout the 
United States on January 1, 2000; scheduled bus operations were to have 
been permitted throughout the United States on January 1, 1997.
    Because of concerns about safety, the United States postponed 
implementation of NAFTA with respect to Mexico-domiciled truck and 
scheduled bus service and continued its blanket moratorium on 
processing applications by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for 
authority to operate in the United States outside the border zone. On 
February 6, 2001, a NAFTA dispute-resolution panel ruled that the 
blanket moratorium violated the United States' commitments under NAFTA.

B. Steps To Provide for the Safe Implementation of the NAFTA Provision 
for Cross Border Operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) is now preparing for the 
implementation of NAFTA's provisions for cross border operation of 
commercial motor vehicles. However, in doing this, the Department must 
assure that cross border operation of commercial vehicles will be 
conducted in a safe manner. To that end, NHTSA and FMCSA are issuing a 
series of notices.
    NHTSA is issuing its series of notices under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et 
seq. (Vehicle Safety Act). The purpose of the Act is to reduce the 
number of motor vehicle crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from 
such crashes.
    One of NHTSA's primary concerns under the Vehicle Safety Act is to 
ensure that the vehicles operated in the United States by Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers were manufactured or modified to comply with 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) issued under that 
Act that were in effect at the time the vehicles were manufactured.
    The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that, subject to certain 
exemptions:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, our regulations provide that exemptions may be 
issued for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that 
are necessary for research, investigations, demonstrations, 
training, competitive racing events, show, or display; vehicles 
being temporarily imported for personal use; and vehicles being 
temporarily imported by individuals who are attached to the military 
or diplomatic service of another country or to an international 
organization. (49 CFR Part 591, Importation of Vehicles and 
Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention 
Standards.)


[[Page 12801]]


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

    A person may not manufacture for sale, offer to sell, introduce 
or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into 
the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety 
standard. * * * takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment 
complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued 
under section 30115 of this title.

(49 U.S.C. 30112; emphasis added.)
    Thus, in general, the FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles that 
vehicle manufacturers manufacture for sale in the United States. They 
also apply to new or used motor vehicles that anyone presents for 
importation into the United States, whether for sale, resale or other 
purposes. This includes all motor carriers, regardless of where they 
are domiciled. The Vehicle Safety Act also requires manufacturers to 
certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable safety 
standards.\2\ The vehicles must bear a permanent label that is affixed 
by the vehicle manufacturer that certifies that the vehicles, at the 
time of manufacture, complied with all applicable safety standards.\3\ 
49 U.S.C. 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA does not certify that a 
vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. That 
obligation rests with the manufacturer of the vehicle.
    \3\ A vehicle imported into the United States by a registered 
importer pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30141, et seq. and 49 CFR Part 591 is 
not required to have a certification label affixed to the vehicle 
prior to entry into the U.S. However, it must have a certification 
label affixed by the registered importer before it can be sold or 
released for highway use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the draft policy statement that is a companion to 
this document, NHTSA has had a policy of allowing fabricating vehicle 
manufacturers to retroactively certify their vehicles in limited 
circumstances. The agency believes that extending that policy to 
vehicles that are engaged in the transport of goods or passengers in 
interstate commerce across the Canadian or Mexican borders is the best 
way to ensure the safety of the driving public while also meeting our 
treaty obligations. Accordingly, NHTSA is requesting comment on the 
policy of allowing fabricating manufacturers of vehicles produced for 
sale in Mexico or Canada that do not have a U.S. certification label to 
apply such labels retroactively to vehicles if they complied with all 
applicable U.S. standards in effect at the time of original 
manufacture.\4\ The proposed policy statement would be limited to 
commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or before August 31, 2002 and 
would require that they be retroactively certified by September 1, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In some instances, minor modifications may be necessary to 
bring the vehicle into compliance with the safety standards in 
effect at the time of manufacture. For example, a manufacturer may 
need to add an indicator that the odometer readings are in km/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing in this document to require vehicle manufacturers 
to make and retain a list identifying all commercial vehicles to which 
they retroactively affix a certification label. We believe this is 
appropriate because of the risk that unauthorized parties could apply a 
certification label in an effort to allow non-compliant vehicles to be 
imported into the United States. Only fabricating vehicle manufacturers 
and, subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR part 
591, registered importers may retroactively certify compliance with the 
FMVSS. The proposed list would provide a means to check whether a 
particular retroactive certification label has been affixed by a 
fabricating vehicle manufacturer.
    The manufacturer would be required to maintain a list of its 
retroactively certified vehicles, identified by the vehicle 
identification number (VIN), or if the vehicle does not have a VIN that 
meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 565, with alternative information 
that uniquely identifies each vehicle, including the vehicle make, 
model, and year. We are also proposing to require the manufacturers to 
record the month and year of original manufacture of each vehicle to 
which it has retroactively applied a certification label and the month 
and year in which the retroactive certification label was affixed. 
Manufacturers would be required to maintain these records for five 
years after the date on which the retroactive certification label was 
affixed.
    This rule would not apply to registered importers. Rather, 
registered importers would be required to meet all the applicable 
conditions of 49 U.S.C. 30141, et seq. and 49 CFR part 591. NHTSA does 
not intend this series of rulemakings to affect how the registered 
importer program currently operates.
    Only those fabricating manufacturers who decide to retroactively 
affix certification labels to one or more vehicles would be subject to 
the proposed recordkeeping and retention requirements. Vehicle 
manufacturers are not required to retroactively certify compliance and 
in many instances will be unable to do so. This is because many 
vehicles manufactured for sale in Mexico did not comply with all 
applicable FMVSSs at the time of original manufacture and cannot be 
readily modified by the manufacturer to comply with those standards. As 
a practical matter, only those manufacturers who produced and certified 
substantially similar vehicles for sale in the United States at the 
same time that the non-certified vehicle was manufactured would likely 
be able to certify a vehicle retroactively, since only those 
manufacturers would have the information needed to assure that the 
vehicle in fact complied.
    We are not proposing to require these manufacturers to retain the 
factual and analytical information that they rely on to certify 
compliance. Currently, we do not require any certifying manufacturer to 
do so. However, it is in their best interest to retain that information 
in the event that an issue arises as to whether a vehicle complied with 
an applicable safety standard. Although manufacturers of vehicles sold 
in the United States develop and retain testing and other information 
that supports their certification that their vehicles comply, we 
recognize that the circumstances surrounding retroactive certification 
are somewhat different, since the vehicle manufacturer may be relying 
on data that are at least several years old.

II. Requests for Comments

    (1) Please comment on whether vehicle manufacturers should document 
and retain information in addition to a unique vehicle identifier, and 
the dates of original manufacture and retroactive certification. If so, 
what additional information should be required, and why?
    (2) Please provide information on what types of unique vehicle 
identifiers are used to identify vehicles manufactured for sale in 
Canada or Mexico.
    (3) Please comment on whether the records described in this notice 
should be maintained for a period of time other than five years after 
the date of retroactive certification.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' provides 
for making determinations whether a regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of

[[Page 12802]]

Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``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 action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered a 
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 
12866. Consequently, this rulemaking document was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be 
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    This document would amend 49 CFR part 576 by adding new 
recordkeeping requirements for vehicle manufacturers that retroactively 
affix U.S. certification labels to vehicles that were originally 
manufactured for sale outside of the United States. The cost of 
maintaining such records would be minor and the required retention of 
such records would not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA 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.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant 
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
Federalism summary impact statement. The rule will not have any 
substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health 
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It also does not 
involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect 
children.

Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. This proposed rule, if adopted, would not have any retroactive 
effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative 
proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial 
review of this rule if it is adopted. This proposed rule would not 
preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on the same 
subject, except that it would preempt a state regulation that is in 
actual conflict with the federal regulation or makes compliance with 
the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the implementation 
of the federal statute.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this 
proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This proposal would merely impose minor 
recordkeeping obligations on vehicle manufacturers that decide to 
retroactively apply a certification label. The application of such a 
label is voluntary.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The proposed rule 
would require vehicle manufacturers who retroactively apply 
certification labels to maintain a list of all vehicles so certified. 
NHTSA is currently working on obtaining a valid OMB control number.

[[Page 12803]]

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing the 
proposed requirements because no voluntary standards exist that address 
the subject of this rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative 
was not adopted.
    The proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the 
definition of a Federal mandate because it would not result in costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this rulemaking is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

IV. Submission of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

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, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
     Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
     On that page, click on ``search.''
     On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
     On the next page, which contains docket summary 
information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. 
You may download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 576

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 576 as follows:

PART 576--RECORD RETENTION

    1. The authority citation for part 576 continues to read as 
follows:


[[Page 12804]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115, 30117-121, 30166-167; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Designate Secs. 576.1 through 576.8 as Subpart A--``General''.
    3. Revise Secs. 576.1 through 576.4 to read as follows:


Sec. 576.1  Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for the retention by motor 
vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records 
concerning motor vehicle malfunctions that may be related to motor 
vehicle safety.


Sec. 576.2  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart 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.


Sec. 576.3  Application.

    This subpart applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles, with 
respect to all records generated or acquired after August 15, 1969.


Sec. 576.4  Definitions.

    All terms in this subpart that are defined in the Act are used as 
defined therein.
    4. Revise Sec. 576.6 to read as follows:


Sec. 576.6  Records.

    Records to be retained by manufacturers under this subpart 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 submissions, 
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.
    5. Revise Sec. 576.8 to read as follows:


Sec. 576.8  Malfunctions covered.

    For purposes of this subpart, ``malfunctions that may be related to 
motor vehicle safety'' shall include, with respect to a motor vehicle 
or item of motor vehicle equipment, 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 causitive factor in, or aggravate, 
an accident or an injury to a person.
    6. Add subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--Recordkeeping and Retention by Manufacturers That 
Retroactively Certify Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards
Sec.
567.21  Scope
576.22  Purpose
576.23  Application
576.24  Requirements
576.25  Records
576.26  Form of retention

Subpart B--Recordkeeping and Retention by Manufacturers that 
Retroactively Certify Compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards


 576.21  Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for the generation and 
retention by motor vehicle manufacturers, other than registered 
importers, of information related to motor vehicles that are 
retroactively certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards, to permit the importation of those vehicles 
into the United States.


Sec. 576.22  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to facilitate determining whether a 
vehicle manufactured for sale in a country other than the United 
States, but being used in the United States, has a valid certification 
of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards.


Sec. 576.23  Application.

    This subpart applies to manufacturers that originally manufactured 
motor vehicles for sale in a country other than the United States and 
that retroactively certify that one or more of those vehicles comply 
with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that were applicable to 
those vehicles at the time of their original manufacture.


Sec. 576.24  Requirements.

    Each manufacturer of motor vehicles described in Sec. 576.23 must 
retain all records described in Sec. 576.25, in the manner described in 
Sec. 576.26, for a period of five years from the date on which the 
certification label was retroactively affixed to the vehicle.


Sec. 576.25  Records.

    Each manufacturer required by this subpart to maintain records must 
generate and retain records that identify all vehicles that have been 
retroactively certified by the vehicle manufacturer. The records 
retained must include, at a minimum, the following information for each 
vehicle:
    (a) The vehicle identification number (VIN) issued in accordance 
with Part 565 of this chapter or, if the vehicle does not have such a 
VIN, another unique vehicle identifier which provides the means to 
identify the vehicle make, model, and model year;
    (b) The month and year of original manufacture; and
    (c) The month and year the retroactive certification label was 
affixed to the vehicle.


Sec. 576.26  Form of retention.

    Information may be reproduced or transferred from one storage 
medium to another (e.g., from paper files to computer disks) as long as 
no information is lost in the reproduction or transfer.

    Issued on: March 6, 2002.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 02-5895 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P