[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18136-18143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 573, 577, 579

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-8677; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AI92


Reporting of Information and Documents About Potential Defects; 
Defect and Noncompliance Reports

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

ACTION: Final rule; partial response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to some of the issues raised by 
petitions for reconsideration of some of the provisions of the final 
rule published on July 10, 2002, that implemented the early warning 
reporting provisions of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Under this rule, motor 
vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers will be required to 
report information and to submit documents about customer satisfaction 
campaigns and other activities and events that may assist NHTSA to 
promptly identify defects related to motor vehicle safety. The issues 
responded to in this document primarily relate to field reports, one-
time historical reports, and multiple ``substantially similar'' 
platforms.
    This document also clarifies several other provisions of the final 
rule. The agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of other 
provisions of the final rule will appear in a future notice.

[[Page 18137]]


DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the amendments made by 
this final rule is May 15, 2003. Applicability Dates: Various 
provisions of this final rule are applicable on the dates stated in the 
regulatory text. See 49 CFR 579.28. Petitions for Reconsideration: 
Petitions for reconsideration of amendments made by this final rule 
must be received not later than May 30, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of any amendments made by this 
final rule should 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. See section VI ``Privacy Act Statement'' for 
electronic access and filing addresses.

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:

I. Background

    On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published a final rule implementing the 
early warning reporting (EWR) provisions of the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, established 
by 49 U.S.C. 30166(m) (67 FR 45822). The reader is referred to that 
document, and the prior Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (66 FR 
66190) for further information.
    Petitions for reconsideration of the EWR rule were filed on or 
before August 26, 2002, by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(the Alliance), General Motors Corporation (GM), the National 
Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM), the National Truck 
Equipment Association (NTEA), the Recreational Vehicle Industry 
Association (RVIA), and the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association 
(JPMA).
    GM and NATM filed untimely supplemental comments on October 15, 
2002, and a petition for rulemaking was filed by the National Trailer 
Dealers Association (NTDA) on November 1, 2002, relating to the 
threshold for full reporting. On November 23, 2002, NATM filed a 
petition for rulemaking to delay the initial reporting date under the 
rule, as did NTEA and RVIA jointly, on December 5, 2002. Additional 
untimely comments were filed by Public Citizen on November 26, 2002, 
and Stephen E. Selander on November 27, 2002. To the extent 
appropriate, given their untimeliness, we will address the late-filed 
comments in a future notice.
    On October 10, 2002, the Alliance wrote to NHTSA requesting that 
certain issues it had raised in its petition be treated on a 
prioritized basis. It separated its issues into three groups and 
explained that ``Generally, those issues given a priority `1' rating 
are those that require resolution to allow Alliance members to 
effectively plan and efficiently execute actions needed to develop 
compliant reporting systems.'' These issues concerned field reports, 
in-plant inspection records and other documents, one-time historical 
reports, and multiple ``substantially similar'' platforms. After 
reviewing the Alliance's comments and letter of October 10, the agency 
has concluded that granting this request may aid in an orderly 
implementation of the final rule and is issuing this notice addressing 
the Alliance's priority ``1'' issues.
    We will address the Alliance's priority ``2'' and ``3'' issues in 
the future. We will also address other issues that were timely raised 
by the other petitioners for reconsideration.

II. Petitions Regarding Field Reports

    The final rule defined ``field report'' as a ``communication * * * 
regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other 
performance problem of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment * * * 
regardless of whether verified or assessed to be lacking in merit. * * 
*.'' It excluded ``a document contained in a litigation file that was 
created after the date of the filing of a civil complaint that relates 
to the specific vehicle, component, or system at issue in the 
litigation.'' This reflected an attempt both to recognize the work 
product exclusion under the rules of evidence and to address it in a 
simplified manner based on the existence of a litigation file. We 
thought that this approach would have appeal because overall it would 
provide approximately the same coverage as a rule strictly based on the 
work product case law and would not require document by document 
review. The Alliance, however, asserted that this exclusion is too 
narrow and should be broadened to state that the definition ``does not 
include documents that were prepared in anticipation of litigation.'' 
Similarly, GM commented that ``documents prepared at the request of 
counsel, whether outside counsel or in-house attorneys, are also 
privileged if the work was done in anticipation of a lawsuit being 
filed.'' It asked the agency ``to reconsider its decision to use the 
filing of a civil complaint as a litmus test for determining whether or 
not a document is privileged.'' As GM recognized in a comment, the vast 
majority of field reports do not have any work product or privilege 
issues associated with them.
    There is no need for this notice to provide a detailed discussion 
of the work product doctrine, given the facts that only a small 
minority of field reports would be considered work product and that the 
doctrine is well established under Federal law. We refer the reader 
generally to Edna Selan Epstein, The Attorney--Client Privilege and the 
Work Product Doctrine (3d Ed. 1997), published by the American Bar 
Association. In short, the work product exclusion applies to (1) 
documents in the broad sense of the word, (2) prepared in anticipation 
of litigation, where there is a reasonable prospect of litigation, and 
not for some other purpose such as a business practice, and (3) 
prepared or requested by an attorney or an agent for an attorney.
    The Alliance's proposed modification to the definition of field 
report presents several problems. First, it does not expressly 
recognize that two mutually exclusive options have been considered: (1) 
A simplified approach based on the existence of a litigation file, as 
published on July 10, 2002, and (2) an approach based on the work 
product case law, which was advanced by the petitions for 
reconsideration. We will, as suggested by the petitions, adopt the 
latter approach in lieu of the simplified approach. Second, the 
Alliance's recommended exclusion is too broad, since it does not 
include some required elements of the work product doctrine. For 
example, more is required to meet the criteria for the exclusion than 
that a document has been created in anticipation of litigation.
    Finally, we wish to underscore that the document truly must have 
been prepared ``in anticipation of litigation.'' The Alliance's comment 
indicates that, in its opinion, counsel may anticipate litigation 
``after a claim is made, but prior to the filing of a lawsuit, or after 
the filing of a ``notice'' that a ``claim'' might be asserted.'' GM 
suggested that the work product exclusion cover reports prepared in 
anticipation of litigation after a claim has been filed and, although 
it would be less frequent, before a claim has been filed. In practice, 
reports prepared after a claim has been filed ordinarily would be more 
likely to be covered by the work product exclusion than reports 
prepared after a ``notice'' was received by a manufacturer. Under the 
early warning rule, Sec.  579.4(c), ``claim'' includes a

[[Page 18138]]

demand in the absence of a lawsuit and a complaint initiating a 
lawsuit. The definition of ``notice'' refers to ``a document * * * that 
does not include a demand for relief.'' We expect that many notices 
would not satisfy the requirements for the work product exclusion.
    Accordingly, we have granted the petitions for reconsideration on 
this issue, and are amending the definition of ``field report'' to 
delete the final phrase ``but does not include a document contained in 
a litigation file that was created after the date of the filing of a 
civil complaint that relates to the specific vehicle component, or 
system at issue in the litigation.'' In its place we are adding the 
phrase ``but does not include a document covered by the attorney-client 
privilege or the work product exclusion.'' We are adding a separate 
definition of ``work product'' as meaning ``a document in the broad 
sense of the word, prepared in anticipation of litigation where there 
is a reasonable prospect of litigation and not for some other purpose 
such as a business practice, and prepared or requested by an attorney 
or an agent for an attorney.''
    GM commented that, were we to exclude field reports prepared in 
anticipation of litigation, its burden of preparing the one-time 
historical report would be substantially lessened. The agency's 
amendment, therefore, will lessen the burden on all manufacturers who 
must prepare the historical report (see discussion in Section IV below 
on historical reports).
    Further exclusions were also requested. GM and the Alliance asked 
the agency to clarify that field reports do not include ``data 
concerning vehicles that are still within a manufacturer's direct 
control'' and, consistent with defect notification requirements (Sec.  
573.3(a)), only include reports on ``vehicles and equipment that have 
been transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer.'' The 
commenters feared that ``field report'' could be interpreted to include 
``quality data from assembly plants.''
    We have considered these comments. We agree that the use of an 
existing regulatory phrase, ``beyond the direct control of the 
manufacturer,'' would be consistent with what we intended in requiring 
reports on field reports. By adding the words ``with respect to a 
vehicle or equipment that has been transported beyond the direct 
control of the manufacturer,'' we clarify that quality data from 
assembly plants or port inspections would not be considered field 
reports.
    Under the EWR rule, manufacturers of more than 500 motor vehicles 
per year must provide NHTSA with numbers of all field reports and 
copies of some field reports. The term ``field report'' is defined to 
include ``a communication * * * by an entity that owns or operates a 
fleet.'' ``Fleet,'' in turn, is defined as ``more than ten motor 
vehicles of the same make, model, and model year.'' The Alliance 
asserted that ``it is usually not obvious on the face of a written 
complaint from a customer or other person making the complaint whether 
that customer owns ten or more vehicles of the same make, model, and 
model year,'' because manufacturers do not know on any systematic basis 
how many vehicles a customer owns, with the possible exception of large 
fleets, such as rental car firms. In its view, it would be burdensome 
``to require each manufacturer to check the ownership status of each 
customer who makes a written complaint * * * to determine whether that 
customer owns ten or more motor vehicles of the same make/model/year.''
    We understand the Alliance's point, and want to clarify that 
manufacturers are obliged to provide fleet report information only for 
those fleets known to it. This is consistent with the TREAD Act's 
provision (49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(B)) that a manufacturer does not have 
to maintain or submit records regarding information not in its 
possession. Accordingly we are amending the definition of ``field 
report'' to include written reports from ``an entity known to the 
manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet.''
    The Alliance asked for confirmation that NHTSA will not consider 
any internal company correspondence about the subject of a field 
report, subsequent to the filing of the report, to be itself a 
reportable field report. The ``field'' is any location where a vehicle 
or equipment beyond the direct control of a manufacturer is located. 
Thus, we do not view the field as encompassing the company itself or 
its internal correspondence about a field report after it has been 
filed. However, our definition of ``field report'' would cover any 
further communication from the field in response to inquiries from the 
company for clarifications, further data, and the like on a field 
report that has been filed.
    In light of the discussion above, we are redefining field report as 
follows:

    Field report means a communication in writing, including 
communications in electronic form, from an employee or 
representative of a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment, with respect to a vehicle or equipment that has been 
transferred beyond the direct control of the manufacturer, a dealer, 
an authorized service facility of such manufacturer, or an entity 
known to the manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet, to a 
manufacturer, regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of 
durability, or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, produced for sale by that 
manufacturer, regardless of whether verified or assessed to be 
lacking in merit, but does not include a document covered by the 
attorney-client privilege or the work product exclusion.

III. Petitions Regarding One-Time Historical Reporting

    Section 579.28(c) requires that certain manufacturers file separate 
reports providing information on the numbers of warranty claims or 
warranty adjustments and the number of field reports that they received 
in each calendar quarter from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2003, for 
vehicles manufactured in model years 1994 through 2003, and for child 
restraint systems and tires manufactured after April 1, 1998, 
classified by the affected system or component, e.g., electrical 
system, seat belts. The final rule defines ``warranty claim'' to 
include a claim paid by a manufacturer pursuant to good will. ``Good 
will,'' in turn, is defined as ``the repair or replacement of a motor 
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, including labor paid for by 
the manufacturer, at least in part, when the repair or replacement is 
not covered under warranty, or under a safety recall reported to NHTSA 
under part 573 of this chapter.''
    The Alliance sought reconsideration of ``the requirement to count 
and categorize historic field reports into the reporting categories 
established in the final rule,'' as well as ``goodwill'' claims outside 
the warranty system. Even though the final rule does not require 
submission of hard copies of field reports for the one-time historical 
reporting, the Alliance asserted that the burden to review and 
categorize historic field reports nevertheless remains substantial, 
``and falls disproportionately on those Alliance members whose field 
reports are not already coded or retained in a text-searchable 
format.'' The Alliance also asserted that requiring manufacturers to 
search through historic files ``to locate any `goodwill' claims that 
were paid outside the warranty system or settlements of `breach of 
warranty' claims/lawsuits'' would provide only a minimal benefit to the 
agency. The Alliance did not question the inclusion of these claims 
once reporting has begun. According to its comment, ``goodwill'' claims 
handled outside the

[[Page 18139]]

warranty system are, by definition, not in the already-coded warranty 
base, nor are settled claims for breach of warranty.
    Based on the cost estimates submitted by the Alliance in response 
to the NPRM, the agency estimated the burden upon industry that one-
time historical reporting of field reports might create. That burden 
was not very significant, compared to the burden that would have 
existed under the NPRM proposal regarding historical reporting. After 
the issuance of the final rule, the Alliance and GM now claim that the 
burden estimate that they previously submitted is substantially less 
than their real costs. Each argued that the effort required to extract 
the information is too high for the value of the reports rendered 
because the information will be obsolete in a short while. We disagree 
with that argument. We explained in the preamble to the July 10, 2002, 
final rule why we need to receive historic information. See 67 FR 
45863. In short, we need historic information to be able to recognize 
changes in trends of experience with potential problems. We note that 
no commenter provided any specific information on the data, data 
systems, or categorization issues it may have or the numbers of these 
that would create the allegedly undue burden.
    On the other hand, we agree to the Alliance's request that we 
exclude from historic reporting warranty claims that were not 
memorialized in a manufacturer's warranty system. Accordingly we are 
amending Sec.  579.28(c) to require only reporting of warranty claims 
that are recorded in a manufacturer's warranty system. This will apply 
not only to warranty claims of motor vehicle manufacturers but also to 
warranty claims of child restraint systems, and warranty adjustments of 
tire manufacturers.
    JPMA expressed a concern about the potential burden that the one-
time historical reporting requirement of Sec.  579.28(c) might cause 
its six members. In the context of this concern, we want to correct an 
inadvertent mistake in the final rule with respect to the historical 
reporting requirements applicable to child restraint system 
manufacturers. Based on JPMA's statement in its response to the NPRM 
that child restraint system manufacturers combine their warranty claim 
data and consumer complaint data in a single database that would be 
difficult to segregate, in the final rule we granted JPMA's request 
that manufacturers of child restraint systems be allowed to report 
these two categories of data together. See Sec.  579.25(c) and 67 FR at 
45850-51. As we made clear in the preamble to the final rule, the 
purpose of requiring one-time reporting of historical data was to allow 
the agency to compare current data with past data to identify any 
unusual or unexpected data points that might indicate the existence of 
a safety problem. Unfortunately, the language of Sec.  579.28(c) did 
not reflect the fact that child restraint system manufacturers would 
prospectively be combining consumer complaint data with warranty data. 
(Similarly, as pointed out by RMA in its petition, that section did not 
reflect the fact that tire manufacturers will not be submitting field 
report data in their forthcoming quarterly reports, so there is no need 
to require them to submit historical data on field reports.) Therefore, 
we are revising Sec.  579.28(c) to apply appropriate historical data 
reporting requirements for vehicle, child restraint system, and tire 
manufacturers, respectively.
    JPMA asserted that NHTSA had greatly underestimated the total 
industry time (2,540 hours) and expense ($117,531) to comply with Sec.  
579.28(c) as originally adopted. It estimated that its members alone 
would spend over 38,500 hours and $2 million to comply. The reason for 
this, according to JPMA, is that the industry's records are not 
automated to the degree that would permit easy preparation of this one-
time report. In part, this is due to the fact that, as discussed above, 
customer complaints and warranty claims are ordinarily not 
differentiated and are maintained in the same database.
    We believe that it is important to have historical information with 
respect to child restraint systems to permit us to identify potential 
safety problems. Historical field report data would not, in itself, 
allow a sufficient comparison. Therefore, to allow us to compare 
similar data over time, and to relieve the burden asserted by JPMA, we 
are amending sec. 579.28(c) to require child restraint system 
manufacturers to provide historical reports on the numbers of warranty 
claims ``and consumer complaints (added together).''

IV. Petitions Regarding Multiple ``Substantially Similar'' Platforms

    The Alliance sought clarification on how it should handle the 
reporting of a foreign fatality in a vehicle that has more than one 
``substantially similar'' platform in the United States. The Alliance 
asserted, ``It would seem redundant and confusing to report the single 
fatality on each of the quarterly reports of all of the ``substantially 
similar'' U.S. platforms.'' It suggested that a manufacturer ``should 
be permitted to choose one of the ``substantially similar'' platforms 
and report the foreign fatality on that platform's quarterly report.''
    We are rejecting this request. In their review of information to 
decide whether to open a defect investigation about a particular 
problem in a specific make/model of vehicles in the United States, the 
agency's screeners need to be aware of relevant information about the 
make/model. If a manufacturer could choose to report a relevant foreign 
fatality in its submission for only one U.S. model, the screeners would 
not be aware of that fatality when considering a different model. 
Moreover, the Alliance has not shown that this is a real problem and 
that if it does arise, that it is likely to occur with any significant 
frequency. We believe that a foreign fatality involving a foreign 
vehicle that has more than one substantially-similar U.S. platform will 
occur only infrequently, as there has been no showing that the number 
of multiple substantially similar platforms is other than small.

V. Miscellaneous Amendments; Clarifications

    Following publication of the rule, we received a number of 
telephone calls asking questions about the meaning of various 
provisions. In some cases, this has prompted our consideration of 
whether some clarifications are needed.
    We had a telephone call from a manufacturer of ambulances and buses 
asking for a clarification of its reporting duties. The manufacturer's 
annual ambulance production consisted of fewer than 500 units that are 
defined as light vehicles and more than 500 that are defined as medium-
heavy vehicles (its bus production also exceeded 500 units). Section 
579.27(a), providing limited reporting if annual vehicle production is 
fewer than 500 vehicles, ``applies to all manufacturers of motor 
vehicles that are not required to file a report pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
579.21 through 579.24 of this part.'' Because the manufacturer is 
required to file reports on its medium-heavy ambulances and buses 
pursuant to Sec.  579.22, it questioned whether it was eligible to 
report on its light duty ambulances under Sec.  579.27(a), or whether 
reporting for these vehicles should be included with reporting for the 
medium-heavy ambulances under Sec.  579.22. We intend that Sec.  579.27 
apply to any vehicle category for which production is fewer than 500 
units and we informed the manufacturer that it will file reports under 
Sec.  579.27 for its light vehicle ambulances (however, its information 
on medium-heavy ambulances would be reported cumulatively with its 
information on buses). In view of the manufacturer's uncertainty, we 
are

[[Page 18140]]

amending Sec.  579.27(a) to state that it ``applies to all 
manufacturers of vehicles with respect to vehicles that are not covered 
by reports on light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles and buses, 
motorcycles, or trailers submitted pursuant to Sec. Sec.  579.21 
through 579.24 of this part.''
    Another manufacturer, also in a telephone call, raised the question 
of whether the reporting obligations encompassed vehicles that it 
leased or only those vehicles that it ``manufactured for sale, offered 
for sale, imported, or sold in the United States.'' We intended to 
cover all vehicles that the manufacturer produced which are operated on 
the public roads in the United States; i.e., which have been introduced 
into interstate commerce, even if these are for lease or the 
manufacturer's own use. Accordingly, we are amending the introductory 
sentence of each of Sec. Sec.  579.21-579.26 to remove the phrase 
quoted above and to replace it with the phrase that appears in 49 
U.S.C. 30112(a): ``manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 
introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or 
imported into the United States.''
    The definition of ``seats'' includes a reference to ``S9 of 209.'' 
There is no paragraph S9 in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
209, and we are removing the erroneous reference to S9 from the 
definition of ``seats.''
    We note that the TREAD Act reimbursement final rule adopted a 
definition of ``rear-facing infant seat'' that differs from the one we 
adopted in the early warning final rule. See our full discussion of 
this issue at 67 FR 64056, October 17, 2002. In that discussion, we 
announced that we would adopt the reimbursement rule definition when we 
responded to petitions for reconsideration of the EWR rule, and we are 
amending the definition of ``rear-facing infant seat'' accordingly. We 
also note that the definition of ``minimal specificity'' refers to ``a 
child seat,'' rather than to the defined term ``child restraint 
system'' used elsewhere in the regulation. We are amending the 
definition of ``minimal specificity'' to replace ``child seat'' with 
``child restraint system.''
    Washington attorney Jim Pitts called our attention to the fact that 
there is no definition of ``model year'' for tires, yet Sec.  579.26 
requires tire manufacturers to provide information on tire model years. 
He found confusing the requirement that information be provided for 
``the four calendar years prior to the earliest model year in the 
reporting period * * *.'' The definition of ``model year'' provides 
that ``For equipment, it means the year that the item was produced.'' 
However, as Mr. Pitts pointed out, the definition of ``equipment'' in 
the EWR final rule does not include tires. Accordingly, we are amending 
the definition of ``model year'' to clarify that ``For equipment and 
tires, [model year] means the year that the item was produced.'' As for 
the phrase that Mr. Pitts found confusing, we are amending Sec.  579.26 
to require information to be provided for ``the four calendar years 
prior to the reporting period.''
    Section 579.5(d) requires each monthly submission of documents 
pertaining to notices, bulletins, customer satisfaction campaigns, 
consumer advisories, and other communications to be accompanied by a 
document identifying each communication in the submission by name or 
subject matter and date. The Alliance objected to this requirement as 
unduly burdensome. It commented that NHTSA has not required such a 
cover letter for these documents in the past and that the agency has 
not demonstrated a need to impose this new obligation. We have reviewed 
the past submissions of these and similar documents, and have concluded 
that we do not need the cover document to achieve our goals under the 
EWR rule. Accordingly, we are amending Sec.  579.5(c) to remove the 
second sentence, which contains this requirement.
    The amendments published on July 10, 2002, were effective on August 
9, 2002, with early warning reporting to begin in 2003. Section 
579.5(b) requires manufacturers to furnish NHTSA with a copy of certain 
documents relevant to early warning reporting, e.g., communications 
relating to customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer advisories, 
recalls, or other safety activity involving the repair or replacement 
of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Section 579.5(d) requires 
information furnished under Sec.  579.5(a) (former Sec.  573.8) and 
Sec.  579.5(b) to be submitted within five working days after the end 
of the month in which it was issued. Washington attorney, Carey 
Fleming, noted in a phone call that this requirement is inconsistent 
with NHTSA's preamble statement that documents furnished under Sec.  
579.5(b) ``will be due within 5 working days after the end of each 
month beginning with April 2003'' (p. 45864). Mr. Fleming is correct, 
and we are amending Sec.  579.5(d) in accordance with our preamble 
statement to clarify that a document covered under Sec.  579.5(b) and 
issued before April 1, 2003, need not be submitted. The first 
submittals under subsection (b) will be documents issued during April 
2003 which will be due not later than May 7, 2003 (i.e., the fifth 
working day after April 30).
    Finally, Mark Schildkraut of New York City reminded us in a phone 
call that, in amending part 573 to redesignate Sec.  573.5 through 
573.7 as Sec. Sec.  573.6 through 573.8, we forgot to make 
corresponding amendments to references to these sections in Sec.  
573.3(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). We are correcting this oversight in 
this notice, as well as making conforming amendments to 49 CFR 577.5(a) 
and 577.10(a).

VI. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993) provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines as ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking under E.O. 12866 
and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This rulemaking has been determined to be

[[Page 18141]]

significant by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866 
because of Congressional interest. For the same reason, this action has 
also been determined to be significant under DOT's regulatory policies 
and procedures. A detailed discussion of impacts can be found in the 
Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) that the agency has prepared for the 
rulemaking completed in July 2002 and filed in the docket. The changes 
made by this final rule on reconsideration are relatively minor and 
will reduce the burdens on manufacturers. This action does not impose 
requirements on the design or production of motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment; it only requires reporting of information in the 
possession of the manufacturer.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed 
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small 
governmental jurisdictions. Business entities are defined as small by 
standard industry classification for the purposes of receiving Small 
Business Administration (SBA) assistance. One of the criteria for 
determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.201, is the number of 
employees in the firm; another criteria is annual receipts. For 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing or assembling 
automobiles, light and heavy duty trucks, buses, motor homes, new 
tires, or motor vehicle body manufacturing, the firm must have less 
than 1,000 employees to be classified as a small business. For 
establishments manufacturing many of the safety systems for which 
reporting will be required, steering, suspension, brakes, engines and 
power trains, or electrical system, or other motor vehicle parts not 
mentioned specifically in this paragraph, the firm must have less than 
750 employees to be classified as a small business. For establishments 
manufacturing truck trailers, motorcycles, child restraints, lighting, 
motor vehicle seating and interior trim packages, alterers and second-
stage manufacturers, or re-tread tires the firm must have less than 500 
employees to be classified as a small business. The changes made in 
this final rule on reconsideration are relatively minor and will reduce 
burdens on at least some small manufacturers.
    Based on the best information available to us at this time, I 
certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of ``regulatory policies that 
have federalism implications.'' The Executive Order defines this phrase 
to include regulations ``that have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' The agency has analyzed this final rule 
in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive 
Order 13132 and has determined that it will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local 
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 
This final rule regulates the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment and 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 Executive Order 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 manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment to report information and data to NHTSA periodically. 
While we have not adopted a standardized form for reporting 
information, we will be requiring manufacturers to submit information 
utilizing specified templates. The provisions of this rule, including 
document retention 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 1320. To obtain a three-year 
clearance for information collection, we published a Paperwork 
Reduction Act notice on June 25, 2002 (67 FR 42843), pursuant to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 
We received clearance from OMB on December 20, 2002, which will expire 
on December 31, 2005. The clearance number is 2127-0616. The amendments 
made by this final rule on reconsideration are relatively minor, and 
should not affect paperwork burdens in a quantifiable way.

Data Quality Act

    Section 515 of the FY 2001 Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-554, section 515, codified at 44 U.S.C. 
3516 historical and statutory note), commonly referred to as the Data 
Quality Act, directed OMB to establish government-wide standards in the 
form of guidelines designed to maximize the ``quality,'' 
``objectivity,'' ``utility,'' and ``integrity'' of information that 
Federal agencies disseminate to the public. The Act also required 
agencies to develop their own conforming data quality guidelines, based 
upon the OMB model. OMB issued final guidelines implementing the Data 
Quality Act (67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002). On October 1, 2002, the 
Department of Transportation promulgated its own final information 
quality guidelines that take into account the unique programs and 
information products of DOT agencies (67 FR 61719). The DOT guidelines 
were reviewed and approved by OMB prior to promulgation.
    NHTSA made information quality a primary focus well before passage 
of the Data Quality Act, and has made implementation of the new law a 
priority. NHTSA has reviewed its data collection, generation, and 
dissemination processes in order to ensure that agency information 
meets the standards articulated in the OMB and DOT guidelines, and 
plans to review and update these procedures as appropriate.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million 
annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). 
Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price 
deflator for the year 2000 results in $109 million (106.99/98.11 = 
1.09). The assessment may be included in conjunction with other 
assessments.
    These amendments to the final rule (67 FR 45822 at 45872-45883) are 
not estimated to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal 
governments of more than $109 million annually. It is

[[Page 18142]]

not estimated to result in the expenditure by motor vehicle and motor 
vehicle equipment manufacturers, child restraint system manufacturers, 
and tire manufacturers of more than $109 million annually.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 573

    Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 577

    Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 579

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

0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR chapter V is amended as 
follows:

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Sections 573.3(b), (c), (d), and (e) are amended by revising the 
phrase ``Sec. Sec.  573.5 and 573.6'' to read ``Sec. Sec.  573.6 and 
573.7.''

0
3. Section 573.3(f) is amended by revising the references to ``Sec.  
573.5'' and Sec.  573.6'' respectively to read ``Sec.  573.6'' and 
``Sec.  573.7'' respectively.

PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

0
4. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  577.5  [Amended]

0
5. Section 577.5(a) is amended by revising the reference to ``Sec.  
573.5(c)(9)'' to read ``Sec.  573.6(c)(9).''


Sec.  577.10  [Amended]

0
6. Section 577.10(a) is amended by revising the reference to ``Sec.  
573.6'' to read ``Sec.  573.7.''

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

0
7. 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

0
8. Section 579.4(c) is amended by revising the definitions of ``field 
report, paragraph (2) of ``minimal specificity,'' the second sentence 
of ``model year,'' ``rear-facing infant seat,'' ``seats,'' and adding 
the definition of ``work product,'' to read as follows:


Sec.  579.4  Terminology.

* * * * *
    (c) Other terms. * * *
* * * * *
    Field report means a communication in writing, including 
communications in electronic form, from an employee or representative 
of a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, with 
respect to a vehicle or equipment that has been transported beyond the 
direct control of the manufacturer, a dealer, an authorized service 
facility of such manufacturer, or an entity known to the manufacturer 
as owning or operating a fleet, to a manufacturer, regarding the 
failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem 
of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, 
produced for sale by that manufacturer, regardless of whether verified 
or assessed to be lacking in merit, but does not include a document 
covered by the attorney'client privilege or the work product exclusion.
* * * * *
    Minimal specificity means:
* * * * *
    (2) For a child restraint system, the manufacturer and the model 
(either the model name or model number), * * *
* * * * *
    Model year * * * For equipment and tires, it means the year that 
the item was produced.
* * * * *
    Rear-facing infant seat means a child restraint system that is 
designed to position a child to face only in the direction opposite to 
the normal direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
    Seats means all components of a motor vehicle that are subject to 
FMVSS Nos. 202, 207, and 209, including all electrical and electronic 
components within the seat that are related to seat positioning, 
heating, and cooling. This term also includes all associated switches, 
control units, connective elements (such as wiring harnesses, hoses, 
piping, etc.), and mounting elements (such as brackets, fasteners, 
etc.).
* * * * *
    Work product means a document in the broad sense of the word, 
prepared in anticipation of litigation where there is a reasonable 
prospect of litigation and not for some other purpose such as a 
business practice, and prepared or requested by an attorney or an agent 
for an attorney.

0
9. Section 579.5(d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.5  Notices, bulletins, customer satisfaction campaigns, 
consumer advisories, and other communications.

* * * * *
    (d) Each copy shall be in readable form and shall be submitted not 
later than five working days after the end of the month in which it is 
issued. However, a document described in paragraph (b) of this section 
and issued before April 1, 2003, need not be submitted.

Subpart C--Reporting of Early Warning Information

0
10. The first sentence of the introductory text of Sec.  579.21 is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.21  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more 
light vehicles annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
light vehicles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 
introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or 
imported into the United States, during the calendar year of the 
reporting period or during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 
or more shall submit the information described in this section. * * *

0
11. The first sentence of the introductory text of Sec.  579.22 is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.22  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more 
medium-heavy vehicles and buses annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
medium-heavy vehicles and buses manufactured for sale, sold, offered 
for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate 
commerce, or imported into the United States, during the calendar year 
of the reporting period or during either of the prior two calendar 
years is 500 or more shall submit the information described in this 
section. * * *

0
12. The first sentence of the introductory text of Sec.  579.23 is 
revised to read as follows:

[[Page 18143]]

Sec.  579.23  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more 
motorcycles annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
motorcycles manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced 
or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into 
the United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period or 
during either of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more shall 
submit the information described in this section. * * *

0
13. The first sentence of the introductory text of Sec.  579.24 is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.24  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of 500 or more 
trailers annually.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer whose aggregate number of 
trailers manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or 
delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the 
United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period or 
during either of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more shall 
submit the information described in this section. * * *

0
14. The first sentence of the introductory text of Sec.  579.25 is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.25  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of child 
restraint systems.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer who has manufactured for 
sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction 
in interstate commerce, or imported child restraint systems into the 
United States, shall submit the information described in this section. 
* * *

0
15. The first and second sentences of the introductory text of Sec.  
579.26 are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.26  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of tires.

    For each reporting period, a manufacturer (including a brand name 
owner) who has manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, 
introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or 
imported tires in the United States shall submit the information 
described in this section. For paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, 
the manufacturer shall submit information separately with respect to 
each tire line, size, SKU, plant where manufactured, and model year of 
tire manufactured during the reporting period and the four calendar 
years prior to the reporting period, including tire lines no longer in 
production. * * *

0
16. Section 579.27(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.27  Reporting requirements for manufacturers with respect to 
vehicles not otherwise covered by this subpart, for manufacturers of 
original equipment, and for manufacturers of replacement equipment 
other than child restraint systems and tires.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to all manufacturers of 
vehicles with respect to vehicles that are not covered by reports on 
light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles and buses, motorcycles, or 
trailers submitted pursuant to Sec. Sec.  579.21 through 579.24 of this 
part, to all manufacturers of original equipment, to all manufacturers 
of replacement equipment other than manufacturers of tires and child 
restraint systems, and to registered importers registered under 49 
U.S.C. 30141(c).
* * * * *

0
17. Section 579.28(c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  579.28  Due date of reports and other miscellaneous provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) One-time reporting of historical information. No later than 
September 30, 2003:
    (i) Each manufacturer of vehicles covered by Sec. Sec.  579.21 
through 579.24 of this part shall file separate reports providing 
information on the numbers of warranty claims recorded in the 
manufacturer's warranty system, and field reports, that it received in 
each calendar quarter from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2003, for 
vehicles manufactured in model years 1994 through 2003 (including any 
vehicle designated as a 2004 model);
    (ii) Each manufacturer of child restraint systems covered by Sec.  
579.25 of this part shall file separate reports covering the numbers of 
warranty claims recorded in the manufacturer's warranty system and 
consumer complaints (added together), and field reports, that it 
received in each calendar quarter from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 
2003, for child restraint systems manufactured from April l, 1998 to 
March 31, 2003, and
    (iii) Each manufacturer of tires covered by Sec.  579.26 of this 
part shall file separate reports covering the numbers of warranty 
adjustments recorded in the manufacturer's warranty adjustment system 
for tires that it received in each calendar quarter from April 1, 2000, 
to March 31, 2003, for tires manufactured from April 1, 1998 to March 
31, 2003.
    (2) Each report filed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall 
include production data, as specified in paragraph (a) of 579.21 
through 579.26 of this part and shall identify the alleged system or 
component covered by warranty claim, warranty adjustment, or field 
report as specified in paragraph (c) of 579.21 through 579.26 of this 
part.
* * * * *

    Issued on: April 10, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-9199 Filed 4-10-03; 3:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P