[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63295-63311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25849]



[[Page 63295]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 579

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-10773; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AI26


Reporting of Information About Foreign Safety Recalls and 
Campaigns Related to Potential Defects

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts amendments that implement the foreign 
safety recall and safety campaign reporting provisions of the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act. Section 3(a) of the TREAD Act requires a manufacturer of 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to report to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whenever it has decided 
to conduct a safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign 
country covering vehicles or equipment that are identical or 
substantially similar to vehicles or equipment offered for sale in the 
United States. The manufacturer must also report whenever it has been 
notified by a foreign government that a safety recall or safety 
campaign must be conducted covering such vehicles or equipment.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the final rule is November 
12, 2002. Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration 
of the final rule must be received not later than November 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must refer 
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a copy to Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

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. Background
II. Part 579, Subparts A and B
    A. Introduction
    B. Applicability
    C. Additional Definitions in Section 579.4(c), Including 
``Safety Recall'' and ``Other Safety Campaign''
    D. Definitions of ``Identical or Substantially Similar'' Motor 
Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Equipment Other Than Tires, and Tires
    1. The meaning of ``identical''
    2. Substantially similar motor vehicles
    3. Substantially similar motor vehicle equipment other than 
tires
    4. Substantially similar tires
III. Section 579.11, Reporting Responsibilities
    A. Time frames for reporting: paragraphs (a) and (b)
    1. The requirement to report within 5 working days
    2. A manufacturer must report to NHTSA even if the determination 
by a foreign government is not a final determination
    B. One-time historical reporting: paragraph (c)
    C. Exemptions from reporting: paragraph (d)
    D. Annual identification of substantially similar vehicles: 
paragraph (e)
IV. Section 579.12, Contents of Reports
    A. Contents of the report
    B. Information not available at the time of the initial report
V. Section 579.3(b), Who May Submit Reports
VI. Rulemaking Analyses

I. Background

    The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Public Law 106-414) was enacted on November 
1, 2000. The TREAD Act, among other things, amended 49 U.S.C. 30166 to 
add new subsection (l), ``Reporting of defects in motor vehicles and 
products in foreign countries,'' and new subsection (m), ``Early 
warning reporting requirements.'' Because the TREAD Act required us to 
publish a final rule on early warning reporting by June 30, 2002, and 
did not impose a deadline for reporting of foreign defects, we accorded 
priority to implementing Section 30166(m). We issued an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6532) in 
which we sought comments on two issues that were also related to the 
reporting of foreign defects: manufacturers to be covered by the new 
regulations and the definition of ``substantially similar'' motor 
vehicles and equipment. The comments on the ANPRM assisted us in 
addressing both these issues in the NPRM on the reporting of foreign 
defects, to be codified in Subpart B of 49 CFR part 579, published on 
October 11, 2001 (66 FR 51907), and in the NPRM on early warning 
reporting, to be codified in Subpart C of 49 CFR part 579, published on 
December 21, 2001 (66 FR 66190). In addition, the NPRM on early warning 
proposed a Subpart A to Part 579, which contains a statement of 
application and terminology that would apply to both Subpart B and 
Subpart C.
    We encouraged readers to review the two NPRMs in parallel to ensure 
consistency (66 FR 66191). The comments in response to both these NPRMs 
raised some issues applicable to both rulemakings, which were resolved 
in the early warning final rule, published on July 10, 2002 (67 FR 
45822). To the extent that the resolution of these issues is equally 
applicable to the foreign defect reporting final rule, we shall not 
discuss them in the detail that we did in the early warning final rule, 
but shall incorporate relevant discussions by reference and provide 
page citations for them.
    Comments on the October 11, 2001 NPRM were submitted by 
manufacturers of motor vehicles (the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (the Alliance) (whose members are BMW, DaimlerChrysler, 
Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Isuzu, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, 
Toyota, Volvo and Volkswagen), the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), Ford Motor Company (Ford), 
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) including Volkswagen AG and Audi AG, 
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), the Truck Manufacturers 
Association (TMA), and Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson), 
equipment manufacturers (the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association 
(MEMA) together with the Original Equipment Suppliers Association, 
Breed Technologies (Breed), Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC (Delphi), 
Johnson Controls (Johnson), and Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC 
(Bendix)), public interest groups (Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates) and Public Citizen (PC)), and the National 
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). The Juvenile Products 
Manufacturers Association (JPMA) represented the views of child 
restraint system manufacturers. The Rubber Manufacturers Association 
(RMA) represented those of the tire industry. The early warning rule 
identifies entities that commented on the term ``manufacturer'' and the 
phrase ``substantially similar motor vehicles and equipment'' in the 
context of that rulemaking.
    As the preamble to the October 2001 NPRM noted, during 2000, 
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) became aware of three 
``Owner Notification Programs'' that Ford Motor Company (Ford) had 
conducted on

[[Page 63296]]

Ford-manufactured sport utility vehicles equipped with ATX and 
Wilderness tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 
(Firestone). These vehicles had been sold for use in the Persian Gulf 
region, Thailand, and Venezuela. In each case, Ford explained to owners 
that it was offering to replace the tires because they might experience 
interior tire degradation and tread separation, due to usage patterns 
and environmental conditions unique to each geographical region, 
``resulting in a loss of vehicle control.'' In none of the three cases 
did Ford immediately notify NHTSA that it was taking this action, 
because, as it explained later, there was no regulation requiring it to 
do so.
    Manufacturers of motor vehicles and replacement equipment were, and 
are, under a longstanding obligation to notify NHTSA if the 
manufacturer ``learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and 
decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle 
safety.'' (49 U.S.C. 30118(c)(1)). Similarly, under Section 
30118(c)(2), when the manufacturer decides in good faith that a vehicle 
or equipment item does not comply with an applicable Federal motor 
safety standard, it must report the noncompliance to NHTSA. The 
precursor to Section 30118(c), which contained substantially similar 
language, has been held to impose upon a manufacturer the duty ``to 
notify and remedy whether it actually determined, or it should have 
determined, that its [products] are defective and the defect is safety-
related.'' United States v. General Motors Corp. (X-Cars), 656 F. Supp. 
1555, 1559 n.5 (D.D.C. 1987) (emphasis added), affirmed, 841 F. 2d 400 
(D.C. Cir. 1988), citing United States v. General Motors Corp., 574 F. 
Supp. 1047, 1050 (D.D.C. 1983).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30166, NHTSA has extensive investigative 
authority. However, until the TREAD Act, the only regulatory 
requirements to provide information to NHTSA about potential defects 
were established by 49 U.S.C. 30166(f), ``Providing copies of 
communications about defects and noncompliance,'' as implemented by 49 
CFR 573.8, ``Notices, bulletins, and other communications'' (now 49 CFR 
579.5(a)). Section 30166(f) provides that:

    A manufacturer shall give [NHTSA] a true or representative copy 
of each communication to the manufacturer's dealers or to owners or 
purchasers of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment produced by 
the manufacturer about a defect or noncompliance with a motor 
vehicle safety standard * * * in a vehicle or equipment that is sold 
or serviced.

    To implement Section 30166(f), NHTSA adopted 49 CFR 573.8, which 
specifies that:

    Each manufacturer shall furnish to the 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 by 
Sec. 573.5(c)(9), sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, 
dealer, lessor, lessee, or purchaser, 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 flaw or unintended deviation from design specifications), whether 
or not such defect is safety related. Copies shall be in readable 
form and shall be submitted monthly, not more than five (5) working 
days after the end of each month.\1\

    \1\ The notices, bulletins, and other communications required to 
be submitted by Sec. 573.5(c)(9), which Sec. 573.8 excludes, are 
those that relate directly to a noncompliance or a safety-related 
defect that NHTSA or a manufacturer has determined to exist under 49 
U.S.C. 30118(b) or (c).

    PC accurately commented that the regulation does not explicitly 
exclude the submission of communications provided to dealers overseas. 
However, NHTSA has never interpreted Section 573.8 to specifically 
address manufacturer communications only to overseas dealers, and this 
question was not within the scope of the NPRM. Accordingly, we are not 
addressing it further in this rule.
    To address foreign reporting and other issues, the TREAD Act 
(Public Law 106-414) was enacted on November 1, 2000. Section 3(a) of 
the TREAD Act amended 49 U.S.C. 30166 to add a new subsection (l), 
which reads as follows:

(1) REPORTING OF DEFECTS IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND PRODUCTS IN FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES--

    (1) REPORTING OF DEFECTS, MANUFACTURER DETERMINATION--Not later 
than 5 working days after determining to conduct a safety recall or 
other safety campaign in a foreign country on 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 manufacturer shall report the determination 
to the Secretary.
    (2) REPORTING OF DEFECTS, FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DETERMINATION--Not 
later than 5 working days after receiving notification that the 
government of a foreign country has determined that a safety recall 
or other safety campaign must be conducted in the foreign country on 
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 manufacturer shall report 
the determination to the Secretary.
    (3) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS--The Secretary shall prescribe the 
contents of the notification required by this subsection.

    The obligation to report under the first two paragraphs above was 
effective on the day that the TREAD Act was signed into law, November 
1, 2000. Since that date, NHTSA has, in fact, received numerous 
notifications of foreign safety campaigns being conducted by vehicle 
and equipment manufacturers. The content, format, and scope of these 
reports have varied, which supports the need for a regulation that 
defines and standardizes the information provided, as required by the 
third subparagraph. For example, at the time of the NPRM, Ford was 
conducting a ``field action'' in Thailand, Malaysia, and Fiji to 
replace faulty brake caliper bodies on certain Mazda Fighter and Ford 
Ranger J97 vehicles. Ford advised us that ``This model is not marketed 
in the United States.'' This leaves unanswered the question whether the 
model is substantially similar to one marketed in the United States, or 
whether the brake caliper bodies are identical or substantially similar 
to brake caliper bodies on Ford/Mazda vehicles that are sold in the 
United States. At the same time, Firestone was conducting a ``Customer 
Satisfaction Program'' in the Middle East covering certain tires 
manufactured in its Wilson, North Carolina plant that were original 
equipment on 589 vehicles manufactured by Ford, specifically model year 
1998 and 1999 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable sedans and station wagons. 
Its letter to us did not state whether similar tires were used on 
vehicles in the United States.

II. Part 579, Subparts A and B

A. Introduction

    With the recent publication of the early warning reporting final 
rule (67 FR 45822), 49 CFR part 579 was reissued with the title 
``Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential 
Defects,'' and the previous provisions of Part 579 were moved and 
incorporated into 49 CFR Part 573. The notice issuing the early warning 
final rule established both Subparts A (General) and C (Reporting of 
Early Warning Information) of Part 579. Subpart A is comprised of 
sections that establish the scope of Part 579, and its purpose, 
application, and terminology. That subpart also specifies the address 
and manner for submitting reports and other information under Part 579, 
and establishes requirements governing certain notices, bulletins, and 
other communications to more than one manufacturer, distributor, 
dealer, lessor,

[[Page 63297]]

lessee, owner, or purchaser in the United States. See Section 579.5(a). 
The rule we are issuing today on foreign campaign reporting establishes 
Subpart B (Reporting of Safety Recalls and Other Safety Campaigns in 
Foreign Countries).
    The October 2001 NPRM proposed to establish Sections 579.11, 
``Additional definitions for subpart B,'' 579.12, ``Identical or 
substantially similar vehicles and equipment,'' 579.13, ``Reporting 
responsibilities,'' 579.14, ``Content of reports,'' and 579.15, ``Who 
may submit reports.'' As mentioned above, thereafter the December 2001 
NPRM on early warning reporting, among other things, noted that it 
included in Subpart A provisions, applicability, and terminology that 
would apply to both Subpart B on foreign defect reporting and Subpart C 
on early warning reporting. We address applicability and the term 
``manufacturer'' under point B below. For organizational purposes of 
locating all definitions in Subpart A, we will add definitions of 
``foreign country,'' ``foreign government,'' ``safety recall,'' and 
``other safety campaign'' to Section 579.4 rather than provide a 
separate definitions section in Subpart B. These definitions and 
substantive issues related to them are addressed in under point C 
below.

B. Applicability

    In Subpart A of Part 579, which was published on July 10, 2002 and 
applies to today's rule, we defined manufacturer as:

a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment, or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment 
for resale. This term includes any parent corporation, any 
subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent 
corporation of such a person.

    Under Application (Section 579.3(a)), the rule states that:

[t]his part applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment with respect to all motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment that have been offered for sale, sold, or leased 
in the United States by the manufacturer, including any parent 
corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of the manufacturer, or any 
subsidiary or affiliate of any parent corporation, and with respect 
to all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that have been 
offered for sale, sold, or leased in a foreign country by the 
manufacturer, including any parent corporation, any subsidiary or 
affiliate of the manufacturer, or any subsidiary or affiliate of any 
parent corporation, and are [identical or] substantially similar to 
any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that have been offered 
for sale, sold, or leased in the United States [emphasis supplied]. 
[The statutory words ``identical or'' were inadvertently omitted and 
have been added by this final rule.]

    In developing these provisions, we considered numerous comments. A 
number of commenters had taken the same positions in their comments on 
both the October 2001 and the December 2001 NPRMs, which was 
understandable given that both addressed foreign events involving 
substantially similar vehicles and equipment and the statement in the 
preamble to the December 2001 NPRM that Subpart A would apply to both 
foreign defect reporting and early warning reporting. For example, on 
foreign defect reporting VW urged NHTSA ``to refrain from attempting to 
assert jurisdiction over entities with no nexus to the United States.'' 
Nissan had a similar comment. They made similar comments in response to 
the early warning NPRM (see 67 FR 45825-45828). Inasmuch as we 
addressed these and other comments related to applicability and the 
definition of manufacturer in the course of the final rule published on 
July 10, 2002, there is no need to repeat our response here. We 
incorporate that notice by reference. See 67 FR 45825-45834.
    In the October 2001 NPRM, we proposed that ``manufacturer'' would 
include agents of manufacturers, through the proposed definitions of 
``safety recall'' and ``other safety campaign'' (the proposed text is 
set out in point C below). Nissan and the Alliance specifically 
objected to the inclusion of ``agent.'' The Alliance asserted that even 
in the United States, case law does not establish a ``bright line'' 
test to determine in advance whether an entity, such as a dealer, is an 
``agent'' of a vehicle manufacturer. The Alliance asserted that use of 
the term ``agent'' in a foreign business environment is ``particularly 
problematic'' because manufacturers in foreign countries ``may have 
entities (such as independent distributorships) acting on their behalf 
for certain purposes, but not others.'' We have carefully considered 
these comments. Noting that we did not use the term ``agent'' in the 
early warning reporting final rule, we have decided that we do not need 
it for purposes of foreign defect reporting. The definition of 
``manufacturer'' in Section 579.4(c) provides adequate breadth.
    Also, both the foreign defect reporting NPRM and the early warning 
reporting NPRM proposed transferring the provisions of Section 573.8 on 
notices, bulletins, and other communications to Part 579, the latter 
NPRM adding the limitation that its provisions applied to documents 
sent ``in the United States.'' The early warning reporting final rule 
adopted this proposal, Section 573.8 becoming Section 579.5(a). The 
limitation addresses AIAM's comment to the foreign defect reporting 
NPRM expressing concern that, without limiting it to documents sent in 
the United States, the provision could be construed to require 
submission of documents relating to foreign non-safety defect 
communications.
    There were additional comments on the foreign defect reporting NPRM 
that were not raised in the early warning reporting rulemaking and thus 
not addressed in the July 10 rule. NADA suggested that ``Section 579.3 
should include language similar to that in 49 CFR 577.3 indicating that 
manufacturers should include all `stage' manufacturers.'' Section 577.3 
applies in part to ``manufacturers of incomplete motor vehicles,'' and, 
in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, allows 
compliance with the obligation to notify and remedy noncompliances or 
safety-related defects by either the manufacturer of the incomplete 
vehicle or any subsequent manufacturer.
    We have reviewed this comment and have concluded that vehicle 
safety concerns do not require that manufacturers of incomplete 
vehicles be included in the foreign defect reporting requirements with 
respect to those vehicles. On an average, NHTSA receives only 10 to 15 
Part 573 reports each year that apply only to incomplete vehicles. 
Given the widely varying configurations of incomplete vehicles when 
completed, and given the relatively few such vehicles that are either 
exported from or imported into the United States, we believe that the 
number of foreign safety recalls or other safety campaigns on these 
unfinished vehicles will be even fewer than experienced in this 
country, and information about such recalls is likely to be of no real 
added value in detecting defect trends. Therefore, we have not adopted 
this suggestion.
    In addition, NADA suggested that ``registered importers subject to 
Part 573 and Part 577 defect and noncompliance reporting and 
notification requirements also should be subject to the Part 579 
[foreign defect campaign] reporting requirements.'' Parts 573 and 577 
apply to registered importers (RIs) because 49 U.S.C. 30147 
specifically requires RIs to notify and remedy safety-related defects 
and noncompliances in vehicles they import. However, because RIs are 
not original manufacturers exporting vehicles, they will not be 
conducting, or ordered to conduct, campaigns outside

[[Page 63298]]

the United States. To the extent that there is a campaign conducted 
abroad covering vehicles that are identical or substantially similar to 
those that an RI imports, the campaign will usually be reported to 
NHTSA by the fabricating manufacturer or its representative. Although 
foreign campaigns might not be reported which cover vehicles that RIs 
are authorized to import that have no U.S. certified counterpart (see 
VCP column, Appendix A, Part 593), these vehicles are few in number and 
their overall impact upon safety is negligible. Thus, there is little 
reason to require RIs to report under Subpart B.

C. Additional Definitions in Section 579.4(c), Including ``Safety 
Recall'' and ``Other Safety Campaign.''

    Section 30166(l) requires that a manufacturer of motor vehicles or 
motor vehicle equipment report to us when it has decided, or has been 
required by a foreign government, to conduct ``a safety recall or other 
safety campaign'' outside the United States that involves vehicles or 
equipment that are identical or substantially similar to products sold 
in the United States. As we noted in the NPRM, the TREAD Act does not 
define ``safety recall or other safety campaign.'' Further, NHTSA does 
not have comprehensive information about the laws of jurisdictions 
outside the United States relating to recalls of motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment, and thus does not have detailed knowledge of 
the terminology or specific practices used in foreign countries to 
address potential safety problems. For example, some countries may not 
differentiate defects from noncompliances with safety standards or with 
safety guidelines. Accordingly, we cannot presume that a procedure 
abroad will follow that specified in 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 and 49 CFR 
Part 573; e.g., a notification to a government agency within 5 days 
after the manufacturer determines that its product contains a safety-
related defect or noncompliance, followed by notification to owners, 
purchasers, and dealers containing an offer to remedy through repair, 
repurchase, or replacement.
    In the United States, the elements of a ``safety recall'' are 
established by 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. In general, these elements are 
(1) a determination by a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment, or by NHTSA, that a safety-related defect or 
noncompliance exists, (2) notification by the manufacturer to NHTSA 
within a reasonable time (defined in redesignated 49 CFR 573.6(b) to be 
within 5 business days of its determination), and (3) notification by 
the manufacturer to owners, purchasers, and dealers advising of the 
determination and potential safety consequences, and offering a free 
remedy.
    We proposed to characterize a ``safety recall'' abroad as involving 
a determination by a manufacturer or one of its affiliates or 
subsidiaries (or a foreign government) that there is a problem with 
specific motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that relates to 
motor vehicle safety (e.g., a defect or noncompliance with a local 
safety standard or governmental guideline), followed by an offer by the 
manufacturer to provide remedial action. The offer could be made either 
by notifying the owner directly or through notifying dealers, who would 
then communicate with owners. Such safety recalls would have to be 
reported, whether or not the problem at issue would constitute a 
safety-related defect or noncompliance under U.S. law.
    The TREAD Act also does not define ``other safety campaign.'' As 
discussed in the NPRM, we would distinguish an ``other safety 
campaign'' from a ``safety recall'' in two ways. First, a manufacturer 
would not necessarily make any acknowledgement, express or otherwise, 
that a safety problem existed. Second, the ``campaign'' would not 
necessarily involve the provision of a remedy. It could include such 
actions as an extended warranty or simply a warning to owners or 
dealers about a possible problem that could relate to safety. It would 
not include ad hoc good will repairs or replacements solely by local 
dealers for individual owners. Thus, a ``safety campaign'' would be 
defined as an action in which a manufacturer communicates with owners 
and/or dealers with respect to conditions under which a vehicle or 
equipment item should be operated, repaired, or replaced, that relate 
to safety. As used above, the words ``relate to'' would have the same 
broad meaning they do in 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and (c). See, e.g., Morales 
v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992).
    Taking these factors into consideration, we proposed that a 
``safety recall'' be defined as:

    An offer by a manufacturer, including but not limited to a 
foreign subsidiary or affiliate or agent of a manufacturer, to 
owners of vehicles or equipment in a foreign country to provide 
remedial action to address a defect that relates to motor vehicle 
safety or a failure to comply with an applicable safety standard or 
guideline.
    We proposed that ``other safety campaign'' mean:
    An action in which a manufacturer, including but not limited to 
a foreign subsidiary or affiliate or agent of a manufacturer, 
communicates with owners and/or dealers in a foreign country with 
respect to conditions under which vehicles or equipment should be 
operated, repaired, or replaced, that relate to safety.

    Before turning to the terms ``safety recall'' and ``other safety 
campaign,'' we note that these proposed definitions included references 
to subsidiaries, affiliates, and agents of manufacturers. However, as 
finally defined in Section 579.4(c) and as discussed above, 
``manufacturer'' includes subsidiaries and affiliates, and does not 
include agents. To avoid redundancy, and consistent with the approach 
taken with respect to early warning reporting, we are eliminating those 
references in the definitions of ``safety recall'' and ``other safety 
campaign'' adopted in this final rule, and simply use the term 
``manufacturer'' as defined in Section 579.4(c).
    There was little comment on the proposed definition of ``safety 
recall.'' Nissan noted with approval that the core elements of a safety 
recall established by the Vehicle Safety Act are present in the 
proposed definition of ``safety recall.'' However, one of these core 
elements is that the remedy be without charge. We are not familiar with 
the laws of other countries on safety recalls and do not wish to imply 
that provision of free remedy or reimbursement is a necessary component 
of a ``safety recall'' under the TREAD Act. We are clarifying this in 
the final definition of ``safety recall,'' which means:

    An offer by a manufacturer to owners of vehicles or equipment in 
a foreign country to provide remedial action to address a defect 
that relates to motor vehicle safety or a failure to comply with an 
applicable safety standard or guideline, whether or not the 
manufacturer agrees to pay the full cost of the remedial action.

    Some commenters contended that the definition of ``other safety 
campaign'' should relate more closely to that of ``safety recall.'' 
Nissan contended that ``Congress intended to capture only those `other 
safety campaigns' that would be equivalent to a recall if conducted in 
the United States.'' Noting NHTSA's comment (66 FR 51910) that a 
manufacturer ``would not necessarily make any acknowledgement, express 
or otherwise, that a safety problem existed,'' Nissan commented that 
this statement was inconsistent with the ``determination'' language of 
the statute. Nissan recommended that ``other safety campaign'' should 
be defined ``to refer to any campaign that would meet the definition of 
a safety recall but, because of variations in foreign regulatory

[[Page 63299]]

schemes, was not conducted as part of a formal remedy system.'' This in 
essence was also the position of JPMA and of the Alliance, which 
suggested that ``other safety campaign'' be defined to mean ``an offer 
by a manufacturer to owners of two or more vehicles or equipment in a 
foreign country to provide remedial action to address a defect that 
relates to motor vehicle safety, when that foreign country does not 
have a statutory or regulatory program requiring safety recalls.''
    We believe that this is too narrow and misreads congressional 
intent. It would require a manufacturer to reach the conclusion that a 
defect exists and that that defect relates to motor vehicle safety. It 
has been our experience that manufacturers often conduct campaigns in 
the United States that relate to safety without acknowledging that a 
defect exists or that there is a safety relationship of a defect. In 
many cases, after becoming aware of such campaigns pursuant to 49 CFR 
573.8 (2001) (now 49 CFR 579.5(a)), NHTSA has required manufacturers to 
conduct them as safety recalls and also has required manufacturers to 
broaden the scope of the campaigns. In our view, under the TREAD Act, 
NHTSA should be apprised of these campaigns in foreign countries at 
least to the extent we are aware of them in the United States. 
Moreover, we view the term ``offer'' as a narrower term than our 
proposed term ``communication by a manufacturer.'' Under our proposal, 
no safety defect need be identified even implicitly. Precautionary 
advice provided by a manufacturer on the conditions under which the 
vehicle is to be operated, repaired, or replaced may reflect the 
existence of a safety problem. In order to effectuate the purpose of 
the foreign defect reporting requirement, we have concluded that it is 
appropriate to adopt an encompassing definition of ``other safety 
campaign'' that goes beyond a ``safety recall.''
    Nissan, RMA, the Alliance, Bendix, AIAM, MEMA, Breed, and JPMA also 
asserted that the proposed definition of ``other safety campaign'' was 
too broad. Illustrative of this viewpoint was Nissan's comment that 
``other safety campaign'' would cover a wide range of communications 
including many unrelated to the purpose of Section 3(a) of the TREAD 
Act. For example, ``a general owner communication campaign providing 
consumers with tips on safety winter driving of a Nissan vehicle in 
Europe would be included * * * and thus reportable to NHTSA.'' AIAM 
expressed concern that the term might be construed to include ``routine 
maintenance instructions in an owner's manual, advertising relating to 
maintenance, or even seat-belt use campaign or anti-drunk driving 
materials.'' MEMA commented that the final definition should exclude 
``materials such as promotional information, operational instructions 
or owner's manuals which accompany the vehicle or equipment at the time 
of first sale.'' RMA would add a qualifier: ``This definition does not 
include customer satisfaction, general maintenance, operating or safety 
information applicable to a broad range of vehicles or equipment and is 
not directed toward a particular identified safety issue or safety 
defect in such vehicles or equipment.''
    These comments are similar to those we received on the definition 
we proposed in the early warning reporting rule for ``Customer 
satisfaction campaign, consumer advisory, recall, or other activity 
involving the repair or replacement of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment.'' We responded to these comments by modifying the definition 
adopted in the final rule to specifically exclude:

promotional and marketing materials, customer satisfaction surveys, 
and operating instructions or owner's manuals that accompany the 
vehicle or child restraint system at the time of first sale; or 
advice or direction to a dealer or distributor to cease the delivery 
or sale of specified models of vehicles or equipment [67 FR 45822, 
45874].

We are adding the same exclusions to the definition of ``other safety 
campaign.''
    PC would replace the ending phrase ``that relate to safety'' with 
the phrase ``as a result of a defect or potential defect.'' PC would 
not leave to manufacturers the determination of whether an action is 
safety-related. However, substitution of the suggested phrase would 
still leave it to a manufacturer to decide whether the subject of its 
communications involved a ``defect'' or ``potential defect.'' Moreover, 
contrary to PC's comment, our definition does not leave the 
determination of a safety relationship to the manufacturer. A 
communication either relates to safety or it does not, regardless of 
the express words used. Therefore, we are not adopting this suggestion.
    Section 30166(l)(2) requires each manufacturer to report to NHTSA 
after notification by ``the government of a foreign country'' that it 
must conduct a safety recall or other safety campaign. We proposed in 
Section 579.13(b) to also require manufacturers to report to NHTSA if 
they had been ordered by a political subdivision of a foreign country 
to conduct such a campaign.
    RMA objected to including political subdivisions in the foreign 
reporting requirements. The commenter asserted that the TREAD Act does 
not require this, and that a political subdivision should not be 
included unless it has been given the specific authority to make 
determinations of recalls or other safety campaigns.
    It is settled that a political subdivision of a country may be 
included within the term ``foreign country.'' In Burnet v. Chicago 
Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1 (1932), the Court recognized that the term 
``foreign country'' ``may mean a foreign government which has authority 
over a particular area or subject-matter, although not an international 
person but only a component part, or a political subdivision, of the 
larger international unit.'' 285 U.S. 1, 5-6. The Court observed that 
``the term `foreign country' is not a technical or artificial one, and 
the sense in which it is used in a statute must be determined by 
reference to the purpose of the particular legislation.'' See also, 
Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 607 (1991).
    This principle is equally applicable to the TREAD Act's foreign 
campaign reporting requirement. The purpose of this requirement is to 
alert NHTSA to the possibility of safety-related defects existing in 
foreign countries that might also exist in the United States. Some 
foreign countries may have political subdivisions that have authority 
to direct the manufacturer of a product to conduct a recall or safety 
campaign. In at least one foreign country, Canada, its Provinces, which 
are political subdivisions, may issue their own safety standards and 
enforce them. It is possible to envision a defect whose consequences 
only occur under conditions of use prevalent in one political 
subdivision of a foreign country and not another, and that the 
government of the locale where the condition is occurring might 
institute action rather than the central government. Thus, we are 
requiring reporting when any foreign governmental unit with authority 
to do so orders a manufacturer to conduct a safety recall or other 
safety campaign on substantially similar vehicles or equipment.
    To remove any doubt that may exist as to the scope of foreign 
recall or campaign reporting, we are adopting definitions of ``foreign 
country'' and ``foreign government'' in Section 579.4(c). A ``foreign 
country'' means a country other than the United States. The term 
``foreign government'' means the central government of a foreign 
country as well as the government of

[[Page 63300]]

any political subdivision of that country.

D. Definitions of ``Identical or Substantially Similar'' Motor 
Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Equipment Other Than Tires, and Tires

    The obligation to report foreign campaigns to NHTSA applies to 
recalls and campaigns involving vehicles or equipment items that are 
``identical or substantially similar to a motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment offered for sale in the United States.'' A parallel 
reporting obligation also exists under the early warning reporting 
provisions (Section 30166(m)(3)(C)), under which manufacturers of 
vehicles or equipment must report:

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 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.
1. The Meaning of ``Identical''
    In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that a definition of 
``identical'' was not needed (66 FR 51907 at 910-911) because if there 
were good faith doubts whether a vehicle or equipment item is exactly 
``identical'' to one that is sold in the United States, it is likely 
that the vehicle or equipment would be ``substantially similar'' to the 
U.S. vehicle or equipment, and therefore be covered by the reporting 
requirement in any case. We came to the same conclusion in the early 
warning NPRM and final rule, and did not adopt a definition of 
``identical.'' No commenter specifically addressed this issue, and we 
have not defined ``identical'' in this final rule either.
2. Substantially Similar Motor Vehicles
    In the October 2001 NPRM, we proposed that substantial similarity 
of motor vehicles be determined on the basis of meeting one or more of 
five criteria (66 FR 51917-51918; see 66 FR 51911-51913):

    (a) 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 such a vehicle (1) has been 
sold in Canada or has been certified as complying with the Canadian 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; (2) 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) is manufactured in the 
United States for sale in a foreign country; (4) is a counterpart of 
a vehicle sold or offered for sale in the United States or (5) 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.

    With the exception of the fifth criterion, we proposed the 
identical criteria for substantial similarity of vehicles in the early 
warning NPRM. 66 FR 66199-66200. On the basis of comments received on 
that NPRM, we adopted the following definition of ``substantially 
similar'' motor vehicles in the early warning final rule (49 CFR 
579.4(d)):

    (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 the VSP or VSA columns of 
Appendix A to part 593 of this chapter;
    (iii) Such a vehicle is manufactured in the United States for 
sale in a foreign country; or
    (iv) Such a vehicle uses the same vehicle platform as a vehicle 
sold or offered for sale in the United States.

    It will be noted that we did not adopt the proposed criterion of 
``a counterpart of a vehicle sold or offered for sale in the United 
States.'' For the reasons expressed in the early warning final rule 
preamble, we are also not adopting the vehicle counterpart criterion in 
the foreign defect reporting final rule. However, we are adopting each 
of the other criteria established by the early warning final rule. The 
first three of these criteria were adopted largely on the basis of the 
discussion in the October 2001 NPRM (66 FR 51907 at 51911-51913).
    The first criterion in section 579.4(d) is that a vehicle will be 
substantially similar to a vehicle sold in Canada or certified to 
conform to the Canadian motor vehicle safety standards (CMVSS). To be 
sold in Canada, a vehicle has to be certified to conform to the CMVSS. 
Over 99 percent of gray market vehicles imported into the United States 
each year are certified to conform to the CMVSS. Generally, they have 
required only a few modifications of labels (and perhaps modifications 
to daytime running lamp systems) to meet the U.S. FMVSS. Because of the 
near identicality of the safety standards of the two countries, 
Canadian and American vehicles are substantially similar to each other.
    The second criterion is that the vehicle is listed in the VSP or 
VSA columns of Appendix A to 49 CFR part 593. This is a list of gray 
market vehicles that NHTSA has found to be ``substantially similar'' 
under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)(i) to U.S.''certified vehicles of the 
same make, model, and model year.
    The Alliance, NADA, and Nissan questioned the applicability of the 
third criterion, commenting that it should not apply unless the vehicle 
that is manufactured in the United States for sale in a foreign country 
is also sold in the United States. However, none of these commenters 
gave a specific example of a vehicle manufactured in the United States 
for sale abroad that is not also sold in the United States. Also, the 
United States is not a low cost manufacturing environment that, based 
on economics, would be selected for assembly operations of such 
vehicles. Further, if a manufacturer produced such a vehicle, the 
vehicle would ordinarily contain a substantial number of parts 
manufactured in the United States and used in vehicles produced by that 
manufacturer, which could be involved in a foreign recall or other 
safety campaign. The comments have not persuaded us, and we are 
applying the third criterion to Subpart B.
    This leaves us to consider the final criterion that we proposed for 
foreign defect campaign reporting:

both [vehicles] 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.

    This criterion reflected a components or system-based approach that 
is different from the final criterion of the early warning reporting 
rule, which is platform-based. As we noted in the preamble to the 
October 2001 NPRM, when a vehicle is the subject of a defect recall or 
safety campaign, the vehicle in its entirety is not defective; instead, 
a manufacturer will recall a vehicle because of a defect or problem in 
one or more of its components or systems that may or may not be used in 
other vehicles that the manufacturer builds. Therefore, we proposed to 
require a manufacturer to report a foreign campaign that the 
manufacturer conducts in which the defective component or system is 
substantially similar to the component or system that the manufacturer 
used on a vehicle which it sells in the U.S., even if the vehicle 
itself is on a different platform

[[Page 63301]]

or would not be ``substantially similar'' under other criteria.
    TMA supported this concept, commenting that substantial similarity 
for purposes of medium and heavy duty trucks should be defined around 
major component systems rather than the vehicle make and model. Thus, 
if medium and heavy duty trucks share identical component parts, they 
would be considered substantially similar.
    However, there were a number of objections to this criterion. The 
Alliance objected for four principal reasons. First, the Alliance 
asserted that the proposal would be unworkable because it would require 
new, extensive recordkeeping systems to track worldwide the application 
of parts. In accord was AIAM, which commented that it knew of no 
company that tracks at the component or subcomponent level. VW also 
commented that it would be burdensome to maintain lists of utilization 
for the over 10,000 components per vehicle.
    Second, in the Alliance's opinion, ``the proposal will not produce 
much information of value that NHTSA would not obtain anyway.'' The 
Alliance asserted that manufacturers ``already have a routine practice 
of determining whether components involved in an actual safety recall 
in a foreign country might also have made their way into the U.S. 
market, and whether the same safety risk is presented in the U.S. 
market.''
    The Alliance also argued that there was no definition of what a 
substantially similar component might be. It asked whether, for 
example, an air bag inflator would be considered ```substantially 
similar' to all other air bag inflators, because they perform the same 
intended function? Or must two air bag inflators have to contain the 
same lot number and be built at the same factory before they would be 
considered `substantially similar'? Or is the `substantial similarity' 
found somewhere in between?''
    In the Alliance's opinion, the proposal also appeared to require a 
vehicle manufacturer to report if it finds that the part involved in a 
foreign vehicle recall is installed on another manufacturer's vehicle 
in the United States. We do not understand this reasoning. Section 
30166(l) clearly requires a manufacturer to report only campaigns that 
the manufacturer conducts, and not to report other manufacturer's 
campaigns, even if they involve substantially similar vehicles or 
equipment.
    Harley-Davidson raised the scenario of equipment incorporated from 
outside suppliers that may have been subject to a recall that is not 
relevant to its application in a Harley-Davidson product, and of which 
it might be unaware. The company argued that this possibility may 
``place a burden on an ultimate vehicle manufacturer that cannot be 
met.'' Harley-Davidson misunderstood the thrust of the foreign defect 
reporting requirement. Harley-Davidson must report on campaigns that 
Harley-Davidson itself (or its subsidiaries or affiliates) conducts in 
a foreign country. If Harley-Davidson determines that a campaign by one 
of its foreign equipment suppliers relates to equipment that Harley-
Davidson uses on one of its foreign (or domestic) vehicles, and then 
determines to conduct a campaign, only at that point would the company 
be required to report its vehicle campaign to NHTSA.
    Advocates commented that the component-based approach ``unduly 
restricts reporting only to those situations involving `substantially 
similar' defective components.'' It ``believes that Congress intended 
[Section 30166(l)] to cast a wider net and requires notification of 
foreign recalls and campaigns on `substantially similar' vehicles even 
if the particular defective part is not `substantially similar.' ''
    We have carefully reviewed these comments and considered the 
possible burden adduced by manufacturers against the safety value of 
the information that might be provided were we to adopt the proposed 
fifth criterion. We have concluded that the simplest, most productive 
course is to adopt the same approach as we did in the early warning 
final rule: to dispense with a component-based approach and to consider 
vehicles substantially similar if they use the same vehicle platform 
(this takes into account our proposal and comments and is an outgrowth 
from them). In Section 579.4(c), we defined ``platform'' to mean:

* * * the basic structure of a vehicle including, but not limited 
to, the majority of the floorpan or undercarriage, and elements of 
the engine compartment. The term includes a structure that a 
manufacturer designates as a platform. A group of vehicles sharing a 
common structure or chassis shall be considered to have a common 
platform regardless of whether such vehicles are of the same type, 
are of the same make, or are sold by the same manufacturer.

    The term ``platform'' is commonly used in conjunction with light 
vehicles. TMA pointed out in its comment to the early warning reporting 
NPRM that manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles, buses, and trailers 
generally do not use the term ``platform'' to apply to their products. 
We observed (67 FR 45843) that

The terminology used by manufacturers is not determinative in this 
context. In addition to reporting on the basis of a structure that a 
manufacturer designates as a platform, we expect these manufacturers 
to report foreign deaths involving vehicles built with a structure 
similar to those used in the United States. To guard against 
possible underreporting of such incidents, we are including the word 
``chassis'' in the definition of ``platform'' in this rule.

    This means, under the uniform criteria that we are adopting, that 
vehicles that are substantially similar for early warning reporting 
purposes will also be substantially similar for reporting of foreign 
recalls and other safety campaigns (we are making an appropriate 
modification in the heading and first sentence of Section 579.4(d) to 
accomplish this). We believe that many of these vehicles will share 
identical or substantially similar components or systems which could be 
the subject of a foreign campaign.
3. Substantially Similar Motor Vehicle Equipment Other Than Tires
    Section 30166(l) also requires reports of foreign recalls and 
safety campaigns pertaining to substantially similar motor vehicle 
equipment. As we noted in the preamble to the NPRM, recalls and other 
safety campaigns involving problems with original equipment (OE) 
components or systems abroad, as here in the United States, are likely 
to be conducted by the manufacturer of the vehicle in which they were 
installed, although under certain circumstances an OE manufacturer is 
required to notify NHTSA of a defect or noncompliance in U.S. vehicles. 
See 49 CFR 573.5(e) and (f) (2001) and the discussion at 66 FR 51907 at 
51913. Nevertheless, in those instances in which an OE manufacturer 
decides to conduct a foreign recall or safety campaign involving 
substantially similar equipment, it would have the duty to report that 
campaign to us. Similarly, if a foreign government notified an OE 
manufacturer that it was required to conduct a safety recall or other 
campaign, the OE manufacturer would be obligated to provide notice to 
us under Section 30166(l)(2). However, if all vehicle manufacturers 
using the item in question timely provide us with a report of a foreign 
safety recall or other safety campaign, we proposed that the OE 
component manufacturer would not be obligated to provide notice under 
Section 30166(l)(1) (66 FR 51907 at 51913).
    Ordinarily, recalls and other safety campaigns involving problems 
with replacement equipment, abroad or in

[[Page 63302]]

the United States, would be conducted by the replacement equipment 
manufacturer. Examples of replacement equipment recalls conducted in 
the United States are those involving defects and noncompliances in 
child restraint systems, lighting equipment, suspension components, 
brake hoses, and brake fluids.
    We proposed, at 66 FR 51918, that motor vehicle equipment other 
than tires would be 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.

    We also stated that we would regard foreign child restraint systems 
as substantially similar (if not identical) to U.S. child restraint 
systems if they incorporated one or more parts that are used in U.S. 
models of child restraint systems, regardless of whether the restraints 
are designed for children of different sizes than those sold in the 
United States 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 restraint systems 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. However, a manufacturer would not have to 
report a foreign campaign on its child seats if the problem that led to 
the foreign campaign involved a component or part that was not used on 
any child restraint system sold or offered for sale in the United 
States.
    JPMA commented that it had ``three important reservations.'' The 
first of these was based upon its belief that the proposed definition 
``would impute a reporting obligation on a manufacturer conducting a 
foreign recall if the component or part involved in the foreign recall 
was used on a child restraint sold in the United States by another 
manufacturer.'' JPMA related that child restraint manufacturers 
frequently obtain the same component from a common supplier. ``Because 
the manufacturer conducting a recall in this example would not 
necessarily know that one of its competitors was installing on a U.S. 
child restraint a component or part that was also installed on the 
recalled product in the foreign country, the recalling manufacturer 
cannot be expected to report that foreign recall to NHTSA.'' To address 
this reservation, JPMA suggested language clarifying that the equipment 
that is sold in the United States must be manufactured by the same 
manufacturer that conducted the foreign campaign.
    We do not understand the basis for this JPMA concern. Under the 
proposed and final rules, a manufacturer is required only to report its 
own foreign safety recalls and campaigns, and it is not obliged to 
report safety recalls by other manufacturers of products even if those 
products incorporate components common to its own recalled product. If 
the safety recall is conducted by the component manufacturer itself, 
the component manufacturer would have to notify NHTSA if the component 
is used in substantially similar vehicles or equipment sold in the 
United States. We have concluded that no amendment is required to 
clarify this aspect of the reporting obligation.
    The second reservation was that ``it is unclear whether NHTSA 
intended to limit the foreign recall reporting to instances in which 
the same component or system is used in both the foreign and the U.S. 
model, or whether * * * the foreign recall reporting [extends] to 
instances in which the component or system at issue is substantially 
similar to a component or system used in a U.S. child restraint model 
manufactured by that manufacturer.'' JPMA explained that the regulatory 
text indicated the same component or system but that the preamble 
suggested that NHTSA may want reports on substantially similar 
components. In our preamble language at 66 FR 51914, we observed that 
``if * * * buckles * * * are common throughout a manufacturer's range 
of models, the child restraints would be substantially similar even 
though the buckles * * * might be used on a variety of add-on, 
backless, belt positioning, rear-racing or booster seats produced by 
the manufacturer.'' JPMA then commented that all child restraint system 
buckles are to some extent substantially similar to other such buckles 
because they all perform the same function using similar designs and 
materials, but that there can be substantial differences in buckle 
performance based on hardware specifications, quality of the 
manufacturer, and interaction among the buckle components.
    We do not consider the variations in buckle performance that JPMA 
mentioned as relevant as to whether a manufacturer ought to report. 
Foreign recalls or campaigns involving substantially similar child 
restraint systems must be reported to NHTSA; however, the reporting 
manufacturer may include its arguments as to why a defect would not 
exist in identical or substantially similar child restraint systems 
sold in the United States. This resolves JPMA's comment.
    Finally, JPMA argued that the definition of ``substantially similar 
equipment'' proposed for purposes of foreign defect reporting could not 
be applied for early warning reporting purposes. We addressed early 
warning issues in the December 2001 early warning NPRM and modified the 
proposal in the early warning final rule. We note that for equipment, 
there is no ``platform'' comparable to that for motor vehicles. 
Therefore, a platform-based definition would not be workable.
    The Alliance commented that, considering the separate definitions 
for original and replacement equipment, the proposed rule ``appears to 
require reports of foreign recalls involving subcomponents used on 
dissimilar vehicles in the United States.'' Because, in its opinion, 
this interpretation would make the definition of ``substantially 
similar motor vehicle'' unnecessary, the Alliance recommended 
restricting the definition to replacement equipment. However, we have 
not adopted the proposed criterion under which campaigns involving 
dissimilar vehicles with the same components would be reported, and the 
Alliance's comment is therefore moot.
    Our proposed definition was almost identical to the one we adopted 
for substantially similar equipment in the early warning reporting 
final rule. Under that final rule, motor vehicle equipment is 
substantially similar:

* * * 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, and the component or system performs the same function in 
vehicles or equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States, 
regardless of whether the part numbers are identical.

    Given our decision above to adopt the same definition for 
``substantially similar'' motor vehicles for both the early warning 
reporting and foreign defect reporting rules, as discussed above, and 
for ``substantially similar'' tires, as discussed below, we have 
decided that we should adopt the same definition for ``substantially 
similar'' motor vehicle equipment. However, we have added a provision 
stating that a foreign campaign involving substantially similar 
equipment need not be reported under Subpart B if the component or 
system that gave rise to a safety recall or other safety campaign does 
not perform the same function in any vehicles or equipment sold or 
offered for sale in the United States. See

[[Page 63303]]

Section 579.11(d)(2). This addresses comments by Bendix and MEMA. In 
Bendix's view, a similar or identical product in other countries many 
have entirely different failure modes with different impacts on safety. 
MEMA asserted that any definition of substantially similar equipment 
should also include an application-specific reference.
    Finally, we note that Delphi commented that ``suppliers of 
equipment should also be responsible for reporting recalls and 
campaigns of their equipment in a foreign country when the OEM does not 
sell the vehicle it is used on in the United States but where the same 
equipment or component that caused the foreign recall or campaign is 
used in another application that is sold in the US.'' We do not believe 
that the language suggested by Delphi needs to be added. To the extent 
that any equipment (original or replacement) covered by a recall in a 
foreign country is sold as replacement equipment in the United States, 
reporting is already required under our definition. The Delphi comment 
would require reports of foreign campaigns on equipment sold in the 
United States but used in a different application than in the foreign 
country. It is likely that in most cases any such original equipment 
would also be sold in the United States as replacement equipment, and 
thus covered by the rule. Requiring reporting in those rare 
circumstances where that is not the case would create extensive burdens 
without yielding much relevant information.
4. Substantially Similar Tires
    In the NPRM, we proposed that tires would be substantially similar 
if they have ``the same model name and size designation, or if they are 
identical except for the model name.'' This was identical to the 
definition we proposed two months later in the early warning NPRM. 
However, the early warning final rule defines a substantially similar 
tire differently:

    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 size, speed rating, load index, load range, number 
of plies and belts, and similar ply and belt construction and 
materials, placement of components, and component materials, 
irrespective of plant of manufacture or tire line.

    The definition we adopted in the early warning final rule was based 
upon comments by RMA. In its comments on the NPRM, RMA asserted that 
there should be a common definition for both rules. For a discussion of 
these issues, see the preamble to the early warning rule (67 FR 45822 
at 844-845). We find these reasons equally applicable to this final 
rule, and for this reason, we are adopting the same definition 
previously established at Section 579.4(d) for early warning reporting.

III. Section 579.11, Reporting Responsibilities

    Proposed section 579.13 contained five paragraphs referring to 
reporting responsibilities relating to foreign campaigns. Paragraphs 
(a) and (b) proposed the time frames within which a manufacturer must 
submit a report to NHTSA. Paragraph (c) proposed to establish a due 
date for reports pertaining to foreign campaigns conducted before the 
effective date of the final rule. Paragraph (d) specified certain 
exclusions from reporting. Finally, paragraph (e) proposed to require 
manufacturers to provide a yearly list of substantially similar 
vehicles. These subjects are now addressed in Section 579.11.

A. Time Frames for Reporting: Paragraphs (a) and (b)

    Proposed paragraph (a) would require a manufacturer to submit a 
report within 5 working days of its determination to conduct a foreign 
safety recall or other safety campaign covering vehicles or equipment 
substantially similar to a vehicle or equipment offered for sale or 
sold in the United States. Paragraph (b), as proposed, would require a 
manufacturer to submit a report, also within 5 working days, after it 
receives notification that a foreign government (or a political 
subdivision of that government) has determined that a safety recall or 
other safety campaign must be conducted on a substantially similar 
vehicles or equipment.
    Comments were submitted regarding the sufficiency of a 5-working 
day period for submitting information, the character of the 
determination by the foreign government, and the appropriateness of 
including political subdivisions as a component of a foreign 
government. (We have addressed the last issue earlier in this notice.)
1. The Requirement To Report Within 5 Working Days
    The principal concern of commenters was whether 5 working days 
afforded sufficient time to file reports with NHTSA.
    Our proposal was based upon the specific language of Section 
30166(l), which requires that manufacturers notify NHTSA ``not later 
than 5 working days after determining to conduct a safety recall or 
other safety campaign in a foreign country'' on substantially similar 
vehicles and equipment, or after receiving notification from a foreign 
government that such a campaign must be conducted. Congress did not 
provide direction on the meaning or implementation of the 5 working 
days period for submission of these reports. In the NPRM, we assumed 
that this 5-day period was based upon the time period in regulations 
NHTSA had adopted to implement the defect and noncompliance 
notification provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 30119(c)(2) 
of the Vehicle Safety Act states in pertinent part that notification to 
the Secretary of such defects or noncompliances under Section 30118 
``shall be given within a reasonable time after the manufacturer first 
decides that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists.'' After 
notice and comment, we adopted a regulation specifying that ``not more 
than 5 working days'' is a ``reasonable time'' for notifying NHTSA of 
decisions that will lead to domestic recall campaigns (49 CFR 573.6(b) 
(2002)).
    Based on our tentative reading of the TREAD Act, we proposed that 
the time period for reporting foreign safety recalls or other safety 
campaigns be 5 working days from the date that the manufacturer, 
including one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, decides to conduct, or 
is notified by a foreign government (including a foreign governmental 
unit) that it must conduct, the recall or other campaign. As we noted 
in the NPRM, ``the 5-day period in Section 30166(l) is very achievable 
in those cases in which the decision to conduct the recall or other 
campaign is made by, or with the concurrence of, the manufacturer's 
headquarters and there is little doubt that the foreign vehicles or 
equipment in question are identical or substantially similar to 
vehicles offered for sale in the U.S.'' We thought it reasonable to 
assume that, in most cases, local subsidiaries or affiliates of 
multinational manufacturers are not authorized to decide to conduct 
safety recalls or other safety campaigns without the concurrence of the 
corporate headquarters, or at least without contemporaneously advising 
such headquarters of the action. Thus, the headquarters would have at 
least basic information on the recall or campaign.
    As we further noted in the NPRM, as a practical matter, we would 
expect few difficulties when a foreign government provides notification 
of its determination that a recall or other campaign must be conducted 
(there have been very few recalls ordered by foreign governments). We 
would expect

[[Page 63304]]

that there would be communications between the foreign government and 
the manufacturer's headquarters or its local subsidiary or affiliate 
before a government-directed recall, so that any formal notification 
would not be a complete surprise to the manufacturer. In any event, in 
our view, the notification would be in the form of a written 
communication to the manufacturer or its local entity. The addressee 
would be deemed to ``receive'' the notification when it is delivered by 
mail, facsimile or other mechanism to the addressee. This document 
could readily be forwarded to a manufacturer's headquarters and then to 
NHTSA.
    We recognized that it may be difficult for a local subsidiary or 
affiliate to know whether the vehicles or equipment covered by the 
recall or other campaign in its country are substantially similar to 
products offered for sale in the United States. However, we expected 
that the parent corporation could readily address this question. 
Manufacturers could assure that all recalls and campaigns in foreign 
countries be brought to the attention of appropriate persons at the 
company's headquarters, who would be able to decide promptly whether 
they must be reported to NHTSA. In addition, the annual list of similar 
vehicles to be submitted by the manufacturer to NHTSA pursuant to 
section 579.11(e) could be sent to all foreign subsidiaries and 
affiliates of a vehicle manufacturer, which would assist them to know 
whether a recall or other campaign needed to be reported.
    There were a number of comments on the meaning of ``5 working 
days.'' VW, Delphi, and Bendix recommended that ``5 working days'' be 
defined as 5 business days in the foreign country involved in the 
report at issue. The Alliance would interpret the term to mean the days 
that a manufacturer conducts business, and would not include days in 
which the manufacturer might be closed for ``scheduled factory and 
headquarters shutdowns (which occur with regularity in foreign markets 
for a period of a week or more at a time).'' VW recommended that there 
should be a maximum number of U.S. days encompassed in the phrase. 
Comments by AIAM and TMA were much the same, and quantified the maximum 
number of days as 15 U.S. business days.
    We do not believe that the reporting will involve a complex 
sequences of events, and our experience and the comments did not show 
otherwise. The statute addresses identical or substantially similar 
vehicles and equipment in at least one foreign country and the United 
States. To satisfy reporting obligations, ordinarily offices in no more 
than one or two foreign countries would be involved.
    Reports of foreign recalls and campaigns that the agency has 
received to date pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30166(l) reflect a variety of 
practices, as the following examples show. Where a multinational 
manufacturer has its world headquarters in the United States, reports 
have been submitted by the U.S.-based entity stating that the company 
and its various subsidiaries and affiliates were conducting field 
actions in markets other than the United States. In addition, a report 
has been submitted by the North American operations arm of a U.S.-based 
company informing the agency that a foreign subsidiary had notified a 
foreign government of a particular matter. Where a multinational 
manufacturer is based in a foreign country, ordinarily the U.S. 
subsidiary submits the report. On some, the U.S. subsidiary submitted a 
report on behalf of the foreign parent. On others, the U.S. subsidiary 
simply submitted a report. One foreign company reported on the U.S. 
subsidiary's letterhead. With regard to the lines of communications, in 
some cases, the foreign parent communicated directly to authorities in 
countries other than the United States. In others, the foreign 
subsidiary (e.g., in Australia) provided information that there has 
been a campaign. In yet others, the report simply stated that the 
manufacturer was submitting information on a particular campaign, and 
identified the country and vehicles involved. In one, the manufacturer 
referred to the factory as having provided information. Some identified 
a manufacturer, which often is identified as the foreign parent, but 
other times is a subsidiary in a foreign country. One reported that its 
foreign licensee planned to recall vehicles assembled by the licensee. 
Although the examples above reflect a variety of practices, each of 
them is straightforward.
    The decision to conduct a recall or other safety campaign 
ordinarily would be made by or at least approved by the corporate 
parent. For example, if a Ford or General Motors product were involved, 
the decision to conduct the recall or campaign ordinarily would be made 
or at least approved in the United States. If a Toyota, BMW, or Hyundai 
product were involved, the decision ordinarily would be made or 
approved in a foreign corporate headquarters.
    We recognize that, in theory, recalls or campaigns ordered by a 
foreign government could raise additional concerns (e.g., the 
possibility of delay in notifying the corporate headquarters and the 
possible need for translation of the recall order). However, such 
government-ordered recalls are very rare, and translation is not an 
issue since, as noted by RMA, only three countries other than the 
United States have statutes authorizing the government to recall 
vehicles or equipment, and all of these are English-speaking (Canada, 
the United Kingdom, and Australia). Also, the statutory obligation to 
report under 49 U.S.C. 30166(l) had been in place for over one year by 
the time that the comment period on the NPRM closed, and the comments 
did not demonstrate any insurmountable problems.
    The statute establishes a deadline that counts working days. We 
believe that it is appropriate to base this period on the general 
business practice of the involved offices of each individual 
manufacturer, including its relevant subsidiaries or affiliates. As 
discussed above, this could include offices in the country where the 
recall or campaign is directed by the government, the multinational 
headquarters, and the U.S. subsidiary, if any. In some countries, 
general business practice may be a matter of law; in others, a matter 
of custom, but it is the framework within which all manufacturers 
conduct their business operations. By ``general business practice,'' we 
mean the days that the corporate offices of a company conduct business 
(in the United States, generally Monday through Friday) as contrasted 
with the days that its plants are in operation (in the United States, 
this often includes Saturday). For example, on a certain day, a factory 
may be closed for inventory but its corporate office remains open; that 
day would be a ``working'' day. We have not adopted a maximum reporting 
date of 15 U.S. working days because working days may be determined on 
the basis of the general business practices of countries other than the 
United States, and it is possible that ``5 working days'' in a foreign 
country, under some circumstances such as corporate shutdown for an 
annual summer vacation, could exceed 15 U.S. working days.
    MEMA commented that the 5-day period should begin on the date that 
the manufacturer determines that the vehicle or equipment recalled is 
substantially similar to a U.S. product rather than the date the 
manufacturer or government determines that a recall is required. This 
comment is posited on the presumed difficulty of identifying 
substantially similar vehicles and equipment in the United States at 
the time a foreign campaign is determined to be conducted. However, the 
statute is

[[Page 63305]]

clear that 5 working days is counted from the day of a manufacturer's 
determination or its receipt of notice from a foreign government. We 
believe that MEMA's suggestion would introduce too much potential delay 
into the process.
    Accordingly, the final rule states that, where a determination is 
made by a manufacturer, the 5-working day period ``is determined by 
reference to the general business practice of the office in which such 
determination is made, and to the office reporting to NHTSA (Section 
579.11(a)). Where a determination is made by a foreign government, the 
5-working day period ``is determined by reference to the business 
practice of the office where the manufacturer receives such 
notification, the manufacturer's international headquarters office (if 
involved), and the office reporting to NHTSA (Section 579.11(b)).
    In determining the 5-working day period, the particular working 
days of the offices involved in individual reports would be considered 
in toto. The rule does not provide separate 5-working day periods to 
each office within the multinational manufacturer that is involved in 
the determination and reporting process. The following hypothetical 
illustrates how working days are computed. It assumes that a vehicle 
manufacturer's world headquarters is in Germany, with subsidiaries in 
Asia and the United States. The Asian subsidiary receives a 
governmental notice on Thursday, September 1, that it must conduct a 
safety recall of certain vehicles. That day does not count in the 
computation of the relevant period, particularly in view of the fact 
that the notice might not be received until late in the day. On Friday, 
September 2, the subsidiary reviews the notice, and perhaps translates 
it into German (Day 1). The subsidiary observes a Saturday and Sunday 
weekend, and Monday is a national and corporate holiday. On Tuesday, 
September 6, the subsidiary faxes the original and the translation to 
Germany (Day 2). On Wednesday, September 7, the German headquarters 
confirms that the vehicles are substantially similar to those sold in 
the United States, and that the recall must be reported to NHTSA (Day 
3). The headquarters office is closed on Thursday and Friday, as well 
as the weekend. On Monday, September 12, the headquarters office 
prepares the report and an English-language translation of the notice 
(Day 4). Headquarters faxes the report, notice, and translation to its 
U.S. subsidiary on Tuesday, September 13, but the subsidiary is closed 
that day. On Wednesday, September 14, the U.S. subsidiary would be 
required to submit the materials to NHTSA (the 5th working day).
2. A Manufacturer Must Report to NHTSA Even if the Determination by a 
Foreign Government Is Not a Final Determination
    We proposed that a manufacturer report to NHTSA whenever it has 
been notified that the government of a foreign country has determined 
that it should or must conduct a safety recall or other safety campaign 
involving covered vehicles or equipment, whether or not the subject of 
the campaign would be a safety-related defect or noncompliance under 
the laws of the United States. For example, if the foreign government 
moves to prohibit further sales of a vehicle for reasons relating to 
motor vehicle safety, we would consider that action to be the 
equivalent of a ``safety campaign.''
    The Alliance and MEMA commented that the notification by a foreign 
government should be one that is ``written.'' In the NPRM, we had 
assumed, as noted above, that such notification would be in written 
form, but we did not specify it in the regulatory text. We are 
clarifying this in the final rule, and the text of the final rule 
clarifies that reporting is only required with respect to written 
notifications.
    There may be occasions when the manufacturer will contest a foreign 
government's determination or order, be it proposed or final. In the 
United States, NHTSA may make an initial decision that a defect or 
noncompliance exists pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(a), affording the 
manufacturer and public an opportunity to present data, views, and 
arguments. Then NHTSA may make a final decision that a defect or 
noncompliance exists and order a recall under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b). Such 
an order can be challenged in court.
    We are not fully conversant with the administrative and judicial 
practices of countries other than the United States, and we asked for 
comments on the vehicle and equipment safety recall laws and practices 
of other countries as they might relate to implementation of reporting 
of foreign governmental defect determinations. RMA advised that ``only 
the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have 
statutes authorizing the federal (or national) government to recall 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in use in those countries).'' 
However, RMA did not discuss these statutes in detail, and there were 
no other comments on possibly relevant laws or regulations of other 
countries.
    The Alliance did not provide any information on countries with 
statutes authorizing recalls or on particular difficulties that its 
members would likely encounter with respect to them. Instead, the 
Alliance asserted that NHTSA's lack of familiarity with the practices 
of other countries justified excluding any determination other than a 
final one. It commented that a term such as a ``conditional'' 
determination might be meaningful when used in the context of some of 
NHTSA's regulatory proceedings but much less clear in other unspecified 
countries. It asked ``is a foreign government's expression of interest 
in a potential defect a `conditional' determination that a recall is 
required? At what point during a pending investigation does official 
curiosity become a `conditional' determination?'' In our view, an 
``expression of interest'' or ``curiosity'' is nothing more than that. 
However, a conditional determination reflects at least some belief on 
the part of the foreign government that a recall should be conducted, 
and thus is of interest to NHTSA, even if a further step is needed 
prior to a directive that a recall take place.
    RMA would apply the criterion that ``the determination would be 
considered a safety-related defect under U.S. law,'' and that only 
final determinations should be reported. At the present time, we do not 
expect foreign law to mirror the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to 
such determinations, and we do not know whether elements of U.S. law 
would be met. The RMA formulation could result in non-reporting where a 
foreign recall was based on a somewhat different standard than governs 
under U.S. law. Also, this could result in extensive delays before a 
resolution of whether a condition was a defect under foreign law. Even 
in the United States, some cases have remained unresolved for an 
extended period of time following an initial decision under Section 
30118(a). Further, RMA's criterion would not encompass determinations 
covering ``other safety campaigns,'' which could be ordered in the 
absence of a defect determination. Information about interim 
determinations or safety campaigns where a defect has not explicitly 
been found to exist will enhance NHTSA's ability to give earlier 
consideration to potential defects in vehicles operated abroad that 
might also exist in substantially similar vehicles in the United 
States. We therefore are adopting the proposal to require reporting of 
all determinations by foreign governmental entities, whether

[[Page 63306]]

proposed, interim, or final, that a recall or other safety campaign 
must be conducted and regardless of whether there has been a finding of 
a safety-related defect.

B. One-time Historical Reporting: Paragraph (c)

    Manufacturers have been required to report determinations or 
notifications of applicable foreign recalls and other safety campaigns 
to us since November 1, 2000, the effective date of Section 30166(l). 
Some have done so. In order to be certain that we are aware of all such 
determinations and notifications, we proposed that manufacturers 
provide us with reports of all relevant determinations and 
notifications between November 1, 2000, and the effective date of the 
final rule, if they had not already been reported to us. This one-time 
historical reporting would assure that we receive information on 
recalls and campaigns that might not previously have been reported to 
us because of uncertainty whether such campaigns covered substantially 
similar vehicles and equipment within the meaning specified in the 
final rule. We proposed that reports would be due within 30 days of the 
effective date of the final rule.
    We had no comments on this proposal, and we are adopting it as 
section 579.11(c). However, to avoid unnecessary burdens and 
duplicative reporting, we are including a provision stating that, if a 
foreign recall or campaign has already been reported to NHTSA, it need 
not be resubmitted under section 579.11(c) if the original report 
identified the model(s) and model year(s) of the products that were the 
subject of the foreign recall or campaign, identified the identical or 
substantially similar U.S. products, and identified the defect or other 
condition that led to the foreign recall or campaign.

C. Exemptions From Reporting: Paragraph (d)

    In the NPRM, we recognized that manufacturers may conduct identical 
recalls in the U.S. and abroad. We proposed that a manufacturer would 
not be required to report foreign recalls or campaigns to us under this 
rule if it had filed a Part 573 report covering the same safety defect 
or noncompliance in substantially similar products offered for sale or 
in use in the United States, provided that the manufacturer's remedy in 
the foreign campaign is identical to that provided in the U.S. 
campaign, and the scope of the foreign campaign is not broader than 
that of the U.S. campaign.
    The Alliance commented that it was ``inappropriate and unnecessary 
to condition the availability of this exemption on the motivations of 
the manufacturer to undertake the campaigns, which may well be 
different from country to country.'' For example, Section 30118 
motivates a manufacturer files a Part 573 report but that would not be 
the motivation for a parallel campaign outside the United States. In 
its view, ``the objective fact that a foreign campaign is being 
undertaken'' should be sufficient. We believe the Alliance is reading 
this phrase in a manner different than we intended. In our view, the 
phrase ``for the same or substantially similar reasons'' means that a 
manufacturer is conducting a foreign campaign for the same or 
substantially reasons relating to motor vehicle safety that it filed a 
Part 573 report. We are therefore modifying the phrase in section 
579.11(d)(1) of the final rule to read ``for the same or substantially 
similar reasons relating to motor vehicle safety.''
    In addition, the Alliance expressed concern ``about the limitation 
of the exemption to campaigns in which the remedies are identical.'' 
For example:

    An illustration of a campaign in which remedies might differ is 
one in which the failure is likely to occur only in cold or cool 
temperatures, such that all consumers in the United States receive a 
replacement component to protect against the possibility of failure, 
but consumers in countries with hot climates year-round need only 
receive an inspection with a replacement as necessary.

    On reflection, we have decided that the exemption should apply even 
if the remedies in foreign countries and the United States are not 
identical. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1), a manufacturer may elect 
the remedy for a defect or noncompliance. In general, NHTSA does not 
question the appropriateness of a remedy selected by a manufacturer 
unless there is some reason to believe that it is not adequate. If we 
do open an investigation into the adequacy of a remedy in the United 
States, we can and will obtain any relevant information about foreign 
remedies.
    The Alliance was also concerned about limiting the exemption to 
campaigns in which the ``scope'' of the foreign campaign ``is identical 
to the scope of the U.S. campaign.'' In its view, if ``scope'' means 
the population of potentially affected vehicles, then the exemption 
will become meaningless, as vehicle models abroad will differ from 
those in the United States. According to the Alliance, the ``scope'' of 
the campaign should not matter ``as long as NHTSA has received a Part 
573 report about the same alleged defect on U.S. vehicles with a 
proposed scope that is suitable and appropriate for the U.S. market.''
    The Alliance misquoted the regulatory text. The exemption applies 
not if the scope is ``identical,'' but if ``the scope of the foreign 
recall or campaign is not broader than the scope of the recall campaign 
in the United States.'' By ``scope,'' we meant the subject matter of 
the recall and the time frame in which the recalled vehicles were 
manufactured. For example, if both the U.S. and foreign campaigns 
related to the same defect in a hydraulic brake system, the scope may 
be identical. But if the foreign recall included a recall of hydraulic 
brake hoses used in vehicles with the brake system that was not 
included in the U.S. recall, the scope would not be identical and the 
campaign would have to be reported. Similarly, if the foreign recall 
covered three model years and the U.S. recall covered only one of those 
years, the foreign recall would have to be reported. Of course, the 
manufacturer would have the opportunity to provide an explanation of 
why the smaller scope of the U.S. recall was appropriate.
    The Alliance recommended expanding the exemption to cover 
circumstances in which a foreign safety recall is properly and timely 
reported to NHTSA, and is later expanded by the manufacturer to other 
foreign countries. In its view, as long as NHTSA has been informed of 
the first foreign recall, ``and has the necessary information to make a 
judgment about whether a similar campaign is warranted in the United 
States, it should not need to receive redundant reports when that 
campaign is extended to other foreign countries.'' We disagree. The 
decision to broaden the scope of a foreign recall and extend it to 
other foreign countries may be based upon factors that differ from 
those which resulted in the initial foreign campaign reported to NHTSA, 
such as the climate or road conditions in which a vehicle is operated. 
Given the wide variety of vehicle operating environments in the United 
States, information on the extension of campaigns could prove of 
assistance in fulfilling the purpose of the TREAD Act of earlier 
detection of potential safety defects. We therefore have not adopted a 
new exemption.
    As noted above, we are exempting from reporting any safety campaign 
involving substantially similar motor vehicle equipment that does not 
perform the same function in vehicles or equipment sold or offered for 
sale in the United States. See Section 579.11(d)(2).
    In addition, we are not requiring manufacturers to report to us a 
foreign

[[Page 63307]]

safety recall (or other safety campaign) whose sole subject is a label 
affixed to a vehicle or equipment. See Section 579.11(d)(3). Some 
foreign recalls involve failure to follow requirements for labels in a 
foreign language that are not germane. Even if the label is in English, 
the governmental requirement in the foreign country is likely to be 
different from the applicable U.S. requirements. Moreover, the agency 
has often judged errors in labels to be inconsequential to safety when 
manufacturers reporting such noncompliances under Part 573 have 
petitioned for determinations under Part 556 that they be relieved of 
further notification and remedy obligations. For these reasons, we have 
concluded that reports of foreign recalls or campaigns involving only 
labels are not likely to lead to discovery of defects or noncompliances 
in identical or substantially similar U.S. vehicles and equipment that 
require remedial action.
    TMA noted that differences in various regions worldwide could 
influence recalls that might not be necessary under the Vehicle Safety 
Act. TMA would report these foreign recalls, but commented that it 
would be appropriate for a manufacturer to provide its views of why 
such recalls should not be conducted in the United States. Nothing in 
today's final rule requires or prohibits such an addition to a report, 
but if a manufacturer chooses to amplify a report, its views should 
follow the information that the rule requires in the report.
    Harley-Davidson pointed out that the European Union (EU) has 
mandated a uniform two-year warranty on new vehicles, and that 
manufacturers may conduct campaigns in order to honor the warranties. 
In its opinion, such campaigns ought to be excluded from reporting. We 
do not agree; if an EU warranty campaign meets the definition of 
``safety recall'' or ``other safety campaign,'' it must be reported.

D. Annual Identification of Substantially Similar Vehicles: Paragraph 
(e)

    In commenting on the early warning reporting ANPRM, the Alliance 
suggested that each vehicle manufacturer submit to NHTSA annually, at 
the beginning of each model year, a list of the vehicles that the 
manufacturer intends to sell abroad during that year that the 
manufacturer believes are ``substantially similar'' to vehicles sold or 
planned for sale in the United States. We thought that such a list 
could help both the manufacturers and NHTSA in determining whether 
foreign recalls and other campaigns need to be reported. Accordingly, 
we proposed that manufacturers identify, not later than November 1 of 
each year, any vehicles they plan to sell abroad in the next year that 
they believe to be substantially similar to vehicles sold or offered 
for sale in the United States, or planned for sale in the United States 
during the next year.
    AIAM commented in the context of the component-based proposed 
criterion of the definition of ``substantially similar'' motor vehicle, 
and its comment is moot since we are adopting a platform-based 
criterion. Harley-Davidson asserted that it does not know as of each 
November 1 all the motorcycles that will be substantially similar to 
its U.S. models in the 12 months of the next calendar year, as its 
model year ends on June 30 of any given year, and decisions regarding 
models for the second half of that calendar year are not made until 
January of that year. The regulation does not require that a 
manufacturer provide a definitive and final list, only an 
identification of the vehicles it ``plans'' to sell in the coming year 
as of November 1. If its plans change thereafter, a manufacturer would 
not be required to amend the list.
    Given the lack of comments by other manufacturers, there appears to 
be no problem in providing NHTSA with an annual list of vehicles as of 
November 1. Generally, manufacturers will have made advance 
announcements of their plans for the following calendar year by that 
date. If there are confidentiality concerns, manufacturers may request 
confidential treatment pursuant to 49 CFR part 512.
    Accordingly, we are adopting our proposal. See Section 579.11(e). 
We are adding the requirement that the manufacturer also identify the 
vehicle sold in the United States that is identical or substantially 
similar to the identified vehicle being sold in a foreign country.

IV. Section 579.12, Contents of Reports

    Under the NPRM, proposed Section 579.14 (adopted as Section 579.12) 
contained two subsections, the first specifying the contents of the 
report to NHTSA and the second dealing with the reporting of 
information that is not available at the time of the initial report.

A. Contents of the Report

    When a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment 
decides to conduct a notification and remedy campaign in the United 
States to address a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a 
FMVSS, or is ordered to do so by NHTSA, it must furnish information to 
the agency as specified in 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and noncompliance 
reports.'' The contents of the required notification are set out in 
Section 573.6(c)(1-11) (formerly Section 573.5(c)(1-11)). These include 
the manufacturer's name (paragraph (c)(1)), identification of the 
vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment potentially containing the 
defect or noncompliance, including a description of the manufacturer's 
basis for its determination of the recall population and a description 
of how the vehicles or items of equipment to be recalled differ from 
similar vehicles or items of equipment that the manufacturer has not 
included in the recall (paragraph (c)(2)), the supplier of the 
defective or noncomplying equipment where applicable (paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv)), the total number of vehicles or items of equipment 
potentially containing the defect or noncompliance (paragraph (c)(3)), 
the percentage of vehicles that actually contain the defect or 
noncompliance (paragraph (c)(4)), a description of the defect or 
noncompliance (paragraph (c)(5)), in the case of a defect, a chronology 
of principal events that were the basis for the determination including 
summaries of field or service reports, warranty claims, and the like 
(paragraph (c)(6)), in the case of a noncompliance, the test results or 
other basis upon which the manufacturer made its determination 
(paragraph (c)(7)).
    We proposed that this same information be provided in the 
manufacturer's notification to NHTSA of a safety recall or other safety 
campaign in a foreign country. In addition, the manufacturer would have 
to identify the foreign country, state whether the determination was 
made by the manufacturer or by a foreign government, state the date of 
the determination, state whether the action in question was a safety 
recall or other safety campaign, and identify with specificity the 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment sold or offered for sale in 
the United States that are identical or substantially similar to those 
covered by the foreign campaign. Manufacturers who are reporting 
campaigns ordered by a foreign government would also be required to 
furnish copies of the determination by the foreign government in the 
original language and translated into English (if necessary).
    We recognized that this is more information than is currently 
required in connection with some campaigns in the United States that 
are not safety recalls under the Vehicle Safety Act. Under former 49 
CFR 573.8 (now section 579.5(a)), manufacturers must

[[Page 63308]]

merely submit the documents that they send to more than one owner or 
dealer regarding vehicle and equipment malfunctions, and they need not 
provide all the information set out in 49 CFR 573.6(c). We proposed to 
require more complete information, in part, because of the difficulty 
in distinguishing between ``safety recalls'' and ``other safety 
campaigns'' in foreign countries. We asked for comments on whether and 
how the level of detail can be reduced for certain type of foreign 
safety campaigns.
    The Alliance, Nissan, and MEMA each commented that it would be 
burdensome and unnecessary to provide all the information proposed to 
be submitted.
    With respect to the seven items of information we proposed to 
require based on former section 573.5(c), Nissan, MEMA, and AIAM 
recommended limiting these to paragraphs (c)(1)(identification of 
manufacturer), (c)(2)(identification of vehicle or equipment), and 
(c)(5) (description of the defect). Each suggested that NHTSA could 
request further information if the agency desired it. These commenters 
contended that some of the seven items of information may not have been 
developed, and that their collection would be time-consuming. RMA would 
limit reports to only information covered by former section 573.8 
(notices, bulletins, and other communications).
    After reviewing these comments, we have decided that it is not 
necessary for purposes of foreign recall and campaign reporting to 
require information specified by 49 CFR 573.6 paragraphs (c)(4) (the 
percentage of vehicles or equipment items estimated to contain the 
defect), (c)(6)(in the case of a defect, a chronology of principal 
events that were the basis for the determination including summaries of 
field or service reports, warranty claims, and the like), and (c)(7) 
(in the case of a noncompliance, the test results or other basis upon 
which the manufacturer made its determination). By not requiring these 
three items of information, the burden upon manufacturers will be 
lessened. However, in addition to those that the manufacturers did not 
object to, we will adopt our proposal to require the information 
specified in paragraph (c)(3) (the total number of vehicles or items of 
equipment covered by the foreign campaign). This information has been 
provided in numerous reports of foreign recalls received to date, and 
its collection is unlikely to be burdensome. As for RMA's comment, as 
we stated above, we believe it is important to require more complete 
information than is required for domestic actions that are not safety 
recalls, in part because of the difficulty in distinguishing between 
``safety recalls'' and ``other safety campaigns'' in foreign countries.
    No commenter addressed the other information regarding foreign 
campaigns that we proposed to require, and we are adopting those 
requirements in the final rule. We are also adding the requirements 
that the report itself be dated, and that, in the case of a recall, it 
describe the manufacturer's program for remedying the defect or 
noncompliance, information presently required by section 573.6(c)(8) 
for U.S. recalls.

B. Information Not Available at the Time of the Initial Report

    As discussed above, foreign recalls and other safety campaigns must 
be reported within 5 working days. We recognized that some of the 
required information might not be available within 5 working days. 
Consistent with redesignated section 573.6(b), we proposed that such 
information be submitted as it becomes available. There were no 
comments on this aspect of our proposal, and we are adopting it. See 
section 579.12(b).

V. Section 579.3(b), Who May Submit Reports

    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).
    We proposed in section 579.15 to apply the reporting requirements 
for foreign campaigns in the same manner as we currently utilize for 
reporting noncompliance and defect determinations to NHTSA under part 
573. That is to say, the report might be filed by either the 
fabricating manufacturer or by the importer of the vehicle that is 
identical or substantially similar to that covered by the foreign 
recall or other safety campaign. The Alliance recommended that the 
final rule ``contain a provision authorizing manufacturers engaged in 
joint ventures or other similar enterprises to allocate between or 
among themselves which entity will assume responsibility for reporting 
to NHTSA.'' The Alliance asserted that allocation of responsibility 
would be similar to that between component suppliers and OE 
manufacturers in part 573.
    In the early warning NPRM, we also proposed that fabricating 
manufacturers or importers could file early warning reports. However, 
in the final rule, we expanded these entities and adopted section 
579.3(b), which specifies that:

    In the case of any report required under subpart C of this part, 
compliance by the fabricating manufacturer, the importer, the brand 
name owner, or a parent or United States subsidiary of such 
fabricator, importer, or brand name owner of the motor vehicle or 
motor vehicle equipment, shall be considered compliance by all 
persons.

    We are adopting largely the same reporting provision for 
manufacturers who report foreign campaigns. We believe that this is 
responsive to the Alliance's recommendation. In any event, we note that 
historically, Alliance members' U.S. headquarters (if the multinational 
headquarters is in the U.S.) or U.S. subsidiary (if the multinational 
headquarters is in a foreign country) have submitted reports under 
section 30166(l) and that this has sufficed. However, rather than 
adopting a separate provision in Subpart B, we are amending section 
579.3 to redesignate paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d) 
respectively, and to adopt a new paragraph (b) which reads:

    In the case of any report required under subpart B of this part, 
compliance by the fabricating manufacturer, the importer, the brand 
name owner, or a parent or subsidiary of such fabricator, importer, 
or brand name owner of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
that is identical or substantially similar to that covered by the 
foreign recall or other safety campaign, shall be considered 
compliance by all persons.

    It should be noted that this differs from the early warning 
reporting paragraph in that a report may be filed by a ``subsidiary,'' 
not just a ``United States subsidiary.'' This means that any of the 
named entities, including a foreign subsidiary who makes a 
determination or receives a notice from a foreign government, may file 
a report, whether it is located in the United States or in a foreign 
country. As we noted in the NPRM, a multinational corporation must 
ensure that all relevant campaign information

[[Page 63309]]

throughout the world is 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 
manufacturer to designate its U.S. importer as its reporting entity, 
and then fail to assure that it is provided with information about 
relevant foreign recalls and campaigns. All manufacturers will have to 
adopt and implement practices to assure the proper flow of information 
regarding relevant foreign recalls and campaigns.
    There was one further reporting issue. Under proposed section 
579.13(a), after a manufacturer determines to conduct a foreign safety 
campaign ``covering'' substantially similar motor vehicles and 
equipment, the manufacturer ``of the vehicle or equipment covered by 
the recall or other campaign'' would report the determination to NHTSA. 
Johnson found it unclear whether ``the manufacturer who makes [the 
recall] determination is the one who needs to make the report.'' 
Johnson noted that ``in the case of original equipment or replacement 
equipment, the equipment manufacturer can make the determination of 
defect. In those cases, the equipment manufacturer should be the person 
who makes the report required under section 579.13(a).'' It argued that 
``imposing an obligation on the manufacturer `covered by' the recall is 
ambiguous, particularly in a case where a recall by a vehicle 
manufacturer is undertaken as a result of a defect discovered by the 
vehicle manufacturer in an original component made by an equipment 
manufacturer.'' It would clarify that the manufacturer making the 
report is the manufacturer making the determination to recall.
    The issue of alternative reporting responsibilities has been 
addressed with respect to notification of defects and noncompliances 
that lead to domestic recall campaigns in section 573.3(e). This 
paragraph permits either a vehicle manufacturer or an OE manufacturer 
to notify NHTSA if the OE manufacturer's defective equipment is used 
only in the vehicles of that manufacturer, and the reporting 
manufacturer to conduct the remedial campaign. This paragraph appears 
to be the basis of Johnson's comment.
    We did not address the issue of alternative reporting 
responsibilities in the context of foreign campaigns in the NPRM. Under 
our proposed fifth criterion, substantially similar vehicles would be 
those sharing the component that led to the safety recall or campaign. 
Thus, it did not seem likely that the foreign manufacturer of the 
defective OE would be the person determining to conduct a safety recall 
of foreign motor vehicles equipped with its defective OE. However, in 
the final rule, as discussed above, we have moved to a platform-based 
criterion. This means that, even if the same defective OE is used in 
both U.S. and foreign vehicles and in the same application, the vehicle 
manufacturer is not required to report the campaign to NHTSA if the two 
vehicles do not share a common platform (or qualify as substantially 
similar vehicles under one of the other three criteria). We have 
concluded that Johnson's suggestion provides greater clarity, and we 
are including language in final section 579.11(a) to clarify that the 
manufacturer making the determination to conduct a safety recall or 
other safety campaign is the manufacturer required to report to NHTSA. 
We are making a corresponding clarification in section 579.11(b) that 
it is the manufacturer that receives the notification from a foreign 
government that must report to NHTSA.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses

    Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 
This document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It has been 
determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures.
    We estimate that fewer than 500 reports of foreign recalls and 
other safety campaigns will be submitted annually; some of these would 
involve parallel campaigns in multiple countries. The costs associated 
with this rule are minimal and are principally related to hours of 
burden. There would be costs in determining whether vehicles or 
equipment that are covered by a foreign recall or campaign are 
identical or substantially similar to vehicles and equipment sold in 
the United States, and there will be costs associated with preparing 
and submitting the annual list of substantially similar vehicles. The 
cost of determining which vehicles are substantially similar will be 
less under the final rule because the most relevant criterion will be 
commonality of the vehicle platform, rather than commonality of parts 
giving rise to the foreign campaign, as initially proposed. Moreover, 
the existence of the annual list will simplify this decision.
    There will be costs to manufacturers to prepare and submit reports 
of these recalls and campaigns to the agency. If a determination has 
been made by a foreign government in a language other than English, a 
manufacturer would also have the cost of translating the determination 
before supplying it to us; however, currently such determinations are 
not made in any language other than English. Finally, there may be 
costs involved in searching out and filing reports with NHTSA that are 
related to foreign determinations made between November 1, 2000 and the 
effective date of the final rule. The costs would appear to be 
principally those of man-hours. We estimate that the costs will be less 
than $200,000 per year industry-wide. We sought comments from 
manufacturers on the estimated costs of meeting a final rule based on 
this proposal and received none.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have also considered the impacts of 
this rulemaking action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action does not 
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. The basis for this certification is that most manufacturers 
of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that operate 
internationally are not small entities. Any small business that 
operates internationally is likely to have less than one report per 
year to send to NHTSA. Thus, the final rule is not economically 
significant, and no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). Executive Order 13132 on 
``Federalism'' requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of ``regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' The E.O. defines this phrase to include regulations 
``that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' This final rule regulates the manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, will not have substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in E.O. 13132.
    Civil Justice Reform. This final rule will 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 requires a manufacturer of 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment

[[Page 63310]]

to report information and data to NHTSA if it decides to conduct, or if 
it is informed by a foreign government that it must conduct, a safety 
recall or other safety campaign in a country outside the United States. 
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. We published a Paperwork Reduction Act 
Notice on August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51925). Following receipt of comments, 
due by October 8, 2002, we will submit the required materials to OMB 
for its approval, pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 579

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

PART 579--REPORTING OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT 
POTENTIAL DEFECTS

    1. The authority citation for part 579 continues to read as 
follows:

    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

    2. Section 579.2 is revised to read as follows:


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 to NHTSA with respect 
to possible safety-related defects and noncompliances in their 
products, including the reporting of safety recalls and other safety 
campaigns that the manufacturer conducts outside the United States.

    3. Section 579.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a), by 
redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as (c) and (d) respectively, and 
by adding a new paragraph (b), to read as follows:


Sec.  579.3  Application.

    (a) This part applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment with respect to all motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment that have been offered for sale, sold, or leased in 
the United States by the manufacturer, including any parent 
corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of the manufacturer, or any 
subsidiary or affiliate of any parent corporation, and with respect to 
all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that have been offered 
for sale, sold, or leased in a foreign country by the manufacturer, 
including any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of the 
manufacturer, or any subsidiary or affiliate of any parent corporation, 
and are identical or substantially similar to any motor vehicles or 
motor vehicle equipment that have been offered for sale, sold, or 
leased in the United States.
    (b) In the case of any report required under subpart B of this 
part, compliance by the fabricating manufacturer, the importer, the 
brand name owner, or a parent or subsidiary of such fabricator, 
importer, or brand name owner of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment that is identical or substantially similar to that covered by 
the foreign recall or other safety campaign, shall be considered 
compliance by all persons.
* * * * *

    4. Section 579.4(c) is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
terms ``foreign country,'' ``foreign government,'' ``other safety 
campaign,'' and ``safety recall,'' to read as follows:


Sec.  579.4  Terminology.

* * * * *
    (c) Other terms. * * *
* * * * *
    Foreign country means a country other than the United States.
    Foreign government means the central government of a foreign 
country as well as any political subdivision of that country.
* * * * *
    Other safety campaign means an action in which a manufacturer 
communicates with owners and/or dealers in a foreign country with 
respect to conditions under which motor vehicles or equipment should be 
operated, repaired, or replaced that relate to safety (excluding 
promotional and marketing materials, customer satisfaction surveys, and 
operating instructions or owner's manuals that accompany the vehicle or 
child restraint system at the time of first sale); or advice or 
direction to a dealer or distributor to cease the delivery or sale of 
specified models of vehicles or equipment.
* * * * *
    Safety recall means an offer by a manufacturer to owners of motor 
vehicles or equipment in a foreign country to provide remedial action 
to address a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or a failure 
to comply with an applicable safety standard or guideline, whether or 
not the manufacturer agrees to pay the full cost of the remedial 
action.
* * * * *

    5. Section 579.4(d) is amended by removing the title and 
introductory phrase ``Terms related to foreign claims. For purposes of 
subpart C of this part:'' and by adding in its place ``Identical or 
substantially similar motor vehicle, item of motor vehicle equipment, 
or tire.''

    6-7. Subpart B is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--Reporting of Safety Recalls and Other Safety Campaigns 
in Foreign Countries

Sec.
579.11 Reporting responsibilities.
579.12 Contents of reports.
579.13-579.20 [Reserved]

Subpart B--Reporting of Safety Recalls and Other Safety Campaigns 
in Foreign Countries


Sec.  579.11  Reporting responsibilities.

    (a) Determination by a manufacturer. Not later than 5 working days 
after a manufacturer determines to conduct a safety recall or other 
safety campaign in a foreign country covering a motor vehicle, item of 
motor vehicle equipment, or tire that is identical or substantially 
similar to a vehicle, item of equipment, or tire sold or offered for 
sale in the United States, the manufacturer shall report the 
determination to NHTSA. For purposes of this paragraph, this period is 
determined by reference to the general business practices of the office 
in which such determination is made, and the office reporting to NHTSA.
    (b) Determination by a foreign government. Not later than 5 working 
days after a manufacturer receives written notification that a foreign 
government has determined that a safety recall or other safety campaign 
must be conducted in its country with respect to a motor vehicle, item 
of motor vehicle equipment, or tire that is identical or substantially 
similar to a vehicle, item of equipment, or tire sold or offered for 
sale in the United States, the manufacturer shall report the 
determination to NHTSA. For purposes of this paragraph, this period is 
determined by reference to the general business practices of the office 
where the manufacturer receives such notification, the manufacturer's 
international headquarters office (if involved), and the office 
reporting to NHTSA.

[[Page 63311]]

    (c) One-time historical reporting. Not later than 30 calendar days 
after November 12, 2002, a manufacturer that has made a determination 
to conduct a recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country, or 
that has received written notification that a foreign government has 
determined that a safety recall or other safety campaign must be 
conducted in its country in the period between November 1, 2000 and 
November 12, 2002, and that has not reported such determination or 
notification of determination to NHTSA in a report that identified the 
model(s) and model year(s) of the vehicles, equipment, or tires that 
were the subject of the foreign recall or other safety campaign, the 
model(s) and model year(s) of the vehicles, equipment, or tires that 
were identical or substantially similar to the subject of the recall or 
campaign, and the defect or other condition that led to the foreign 
recall or campaign, as of November 12, 2002, shall report such 
determination or notification of determination to NHTSA if the safety 
recall or other safety campaign covers a motor vehicle, item of motor 
vehicle equipment, or tire that is identical or substantially similar 
to a vehicle, item of equipment, or tire sold or offered for sale in 
the United States. However, a report need not be resubmitted under this 
paragraph if the original report identified the model(s) and model 
year(s) of the vehicles, equipment, or tires that were the subject of 
the foreign recall or other safety campaign, identified the model(s) 
and model year(s) of the identical or substantially similar products in 
the United States, and identified the defect or other condition that 
led to the foreign recall or other safety campaign.
    (d) Exemptions from reporting. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b), 
and (c) of this section a manufacturer need not report a foreign safety 
recall or other safety campaign to NHTSA if:
    (1) The manufacturer has determined that for the same or 
substantially similar reasons relating to motor vehicle safety that it 
is conducting a safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign 
country, a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard exists in identical or substantially similar 
motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or tires sold or offered for 
sale in the United States, and has filed a defect or noncompliance 
information report pursuant to part 573 of this chapter, provided that 
the scope of the foreign recall or campaign is not broader than the 
scope of the recall campaign in the United States;
    (2) The component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall or 
other campaign does not perform the same function in any vehicles or 
equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States; or
    (3) The sole subject of the foreign recall or other campaign is a 
label affixed to a vehicle, item of equipment, or a tire.
    (e) Annual list of substantially similar vehicles. Not later than 
November 1 of each year, each manufacturer of motor vehicles that sells 
or offers a motor vehicle for sale in the United States shall submit to 
NHTSA a document that identifies both each model of motor vehicle that 
the manufacturer sells or plans to sell during the following year in a 
foreign country that the manufacturer believes is identical or 
substantially similar to a motor vehicle sold or offered for sale in 
the United States (or to a motor vehicle that is planned for sale in 
the United States in the following year), and each such identical or 
substantially similar motor vehicle sold or offered for sale in the 
United States.


Sec.  579.12  Contents of reports.

    (a) Each report made pursuant to Sec.  579.11 of this part must be 
dated and must include the information specified in Sec.  573.6(c)(1), 
(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(5) of this chapter. Each such report must also 
identify each foreign country in which the safety recall or other 
safety campaign is being conducted, state whether the foreign action is 
a safety recall or other safety campaign, state whether the 
determination to conduct the recall or campaign was made by the 
manufacturer or by a foreign government, describe the manufacturer's 
program for remedying the defect or noncompliance (if the action is a 
safety recall), specify the date of the determination and the date the 
recall or other campaign was commenced or will commence in each foreign 
country, and identify all motor vehicles, equipment, or tires that the 
manufacturer sold or offered for sale in the United States that are 
identical or substantially similar to the motor vehicles, equipment, or 
tires covered by the foreign recall or campaign. If a determination has 
been made by a foreign government, the report must also include a copy 
of the determination in the original language and, if the determination 
is in a language other than English, a copy translated into English.
    (b) Information required by paragraph (a) of this section that is 
not available within the 5-working day period specified in Sec.  579.11 
of this part shall be submitted as it becomes available.

    Issued on: October 7, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-25849 Filed 10-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P