[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35132-35145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-14702]



[[Page 35131]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 579



Reporting of Information and Documents About Potential Defects; Final 
Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 35132]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 579

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-8677; Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AI92


Reporting of Information and Documents About Potential Defects

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to previously-unaddressed issues raised 
in petitions for reconsideration 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. NHTSA responded to some of the 
issues raised in the petitions in a notice published on April 15, 2003, 
and stated that it would respond to the remaining issues in the future.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the amendments made by 
this final rule is July 11, 2003. Petitions for Reconsideration: 
Petitions for reconsideration of any amendments made by this final rule 
must be received not later than July 28, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the amendments made by this 
final rule must refer to the docket or Regulatory Identification Number 
(RIN) for this rulemaking, and be addressed to the Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You may submit 
a petition by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
petitions.

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 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 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 
comments were filed by Public Citizen on November 26, 2002, and Stephen 
E. Selander on November 27, 2002.
    On October 10, 2002, the Alliance wrote 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 
concluded that granting this request would aid in an orderly 
implementation of the final rule and, on April 15, 2003, we published a 
notice addressing the Alliance's priority ``1'' issues as well as other 
issues (68 FR 18136).
    This notice addresses remaining issues raised by the Alliance and 
other persons in timely filed petitions for reconsideration of the 
final rule. Issues related to thresholds for reporting will be 
addressed in a subsequent notice.

II. Petitions Concerning the Recordkeeping Requirements of 49 CFR Part 
576

    Each manufacturer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is 
required to retain the underlying records on which the information that 
it reports to NHTSA under the final early warning reporting rule is 
based. These records must be kept for a period of five calendar years 
from the date on which they were generated or acquired by the 
manufacturer (see 49 CFR 576.5(b)). Among the information to be 
reported to NHTSA under the early warning reporting final rule is the 
one-time submission by certain manufacturers of certain historical 
information for a period that begins April 1, 2000 (Section 579.28(c)). 
Section 576.5(b) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles to retain the 
underlying records for the one-time historical report, which covers the 
12-quarterly period ending March 31, 2003, until the same date in 2008. 
The Alliance asserted that these two regulatory provisions have the 
effect of requiring manufacturers to retain records for periods longer 
than five years, ``a burden that was not identified or estimated in 
connection with the adoption of the final rule or in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act clearance request submitted by the agency to OMB.'' The 
Alliance suggested that ``manufacturers [could] retain the supporting 
information for each historic report for a period of time equal to five 
years from the beginning of the reporting quarter. Thus, for example, 
the record used to prepare the historic report for the third quarter of 
2002 would be retained until the third quarter of 2007--five years 
after their creation.''
    The Alliance's interpretation differs from ours. The regulatory 
requirement is to retain the underlying records for a period of five 
years ``from the date on which they were generated, or acquired by the 
manufacturer'' not five years after the date of the report to NHTSA. 
Under the existing regulation, as we interpret it, the records 
underlying the oldest data used to prepare the historical report, those 
for the second quarter of 2000,

[[Page 35133]]

would be retained until the second quarter of 2005, five years after 
the records were generated. This is consistent with the outcome that 
the Alliance requested.
    JPMA asked whether it was necessary to retain ``non-substantive 
information (such as name, address, telephone number of claimant), or 
hard-copies of incoming or outgoing correspondence related to the claim 
(such as letters obtaining additional information from the claimant), 
that complete the entire underlying claim record.'' The answer is yes, 
it is necessary to retain this information. It is substantive material. 
For example, we may wish to contact the claimant. The records 
underlying the reports to NHTSA will not be complete without the 
information referred to by JPMA.

III. Petitions To Clarify Production Numbers To Be Reported Under Part 
579

    The final rule requires reporting of production numbers by 
manufacturers who sell vehicles in the United States even if those 
vehicles are made outside the United States. The Alliance, JPMA, and 
RMA viewed the production reporting as ambiguous, that it could be 
interpreted as requiring a manufacturer to report its world-wide 
production. The Alliance assumed that NHTSA only wants production 
figures for units destined for sale in the United States, otherwise 
NHTSA could be comparing U.S. trend-indicator data against a world-wide 
production number. The Alliance is correct, with the caveat that 
vehicles destined for lease in the United States are included as well. 
Moreover, for the same reason, manufacturers producing vehicles in the 
United States for export should not include the exported vehicles in 
their production numbers.

IV. Petitions To Amend or To Clarify Section 579.4(c), Other Terms

    Section 579.4(c) contains definitions of terms used in the early 
warning reporting final rule. We were asked to amend or to clarify a 
number of these terms as well as to add definitions.
    1. Affiliate. The final rule defines ``affiliate'' in pertinent 
part as ``a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more 
intermediates, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control 
with, the person specified.'' RMA recognized that we had based this 
definition on regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) (17 CFR 230.405), which also provide a separate definition of 
``control.'' RMA urged us to adopt the SEC definition ``in order to 
ensure that the term `affiliate' is defined with specificity.'' We 
concur with this recommendation, and are defining the term ``control'' 
as follows:

    Control (including the terms controlling, controlled by, and 
under common control with) means the possession, direct or indirect, 
of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and 
policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting 
securities, by contract, or otherwise.

    2. Base. JPMA asked whether ``base'' means only a detachable base 
used with an infant seat and not the permanently-installed base 
associated with some designs of convertible child restraints that allow 
changing positions for child comfort. We defined ``base'' as ``the 
detachable bottom portion of a child restraint system that may remain 
in the vehicle to provide a base for securing the system to a seat in a 
motor vehicle.'' Thus, this term applies only to the detachable base 
used with an infant seat.
    3. Buckle and release harness. JPMA also asked whether the 
definition of ``buckle and restraint harness'' included ``harness 
clips.'' See Section 579.25(b)(2). Our definition included ``the 
components that are intended to restrain a child seated in such a 
system. * * *'' A harness clip can help ensure that the harness is 
properly positioned on the child's shoulders and chest at time of 
impact. However, under the early warning rule, we do not view it as a 
component intended to restrain a seated child. If a manufacturer 
receives a claim or notice of a death or injury that is alleged to be 
due to a problem or defect in a harness clip, the incident would be 
reported under ``other'' rather than ``buckle and restraint harness.''
    4. Claim. In its comments on the NPRM, the Alliance recommended 
that early warning reports of injuries should not include claims or 
notices about ``emotional'' and other non-physical injuries because 
these are not ordinarily the type of injury with which NHTSA is 
concerned under the Vehicle Safety Act. We disagreed, noting that a 
claim for emotional distress following (for example) an inadvertent 
airbag deployment or a loss of vehicle control would be of interest to 
us (p. 45840). The final rule requires manufacturers of 500 vehicles or 
more, and manufacturers of tires and child restraint systems, to 
provide information on claims of injuries and on notices of injuries 
occurring in the United States that are alleged or proven to be due to 
a defect in the manufacturer's product. Reportable injuries were not 
limited in the regulatory text. The preamble indicated that NHTSA 
intends the term ``injury'' to include non-physical as well as physical 
injuries. Saying that it had not been clear as to what we meant, the 
Alliance requested that we exclude from the definitions of ``claim'' 
and ``notice'' any injury claim ``that is derivative of a fatality/
injury claim that is separately reportable under the early warning 
system.'' In support of its latest request, the Alliance evoked the 
specter of derivative claims by persons related to persons injured in a 
crash but who themselves were not physically present when the injury 
occurred. The Alliance asserted that reporting of derivative injury 
claims will distort the real injury accident rate for a particular 
make/model of vehicle.
    We have reviewed the Alliance's request and are modifying the 
regulations in part. Claims may be asserted until the statute of 
limitations runs. In some cases, the initial claim against a 
manufacturer will be made by a person physically injured as a direct 
result of a crash, whether the claimant is inside a vehicle or outside 
of it. But in other cases, the initial claim may be filed by a person 
outside the vehicle who was not physically injured by the crash or 
physically present at the crash. There could be a considerable 
difference in time between the submission of the two claims. We want to 
be aware of claims arising out of alleged defects as soon as possible, 
and therefore do not want to broadly exempt all derivative claims. 
However, a derivative injury claim would appear to provide little 
benefit for early warning reporting purposes when an incident involving 
a death or injury that is the predicate for the derivative claim has 
been reported to NHTSA. We are balancing these concerns by retaining 
the general requirement that manufacturers report claims and notices by 
vehicle occupants and people outside vehicles who were not physically 
injured in a crash but presented claims for emotional distress, but are 
adding an exclusion that these claims and notices need not be reported 
if the manufacturer has reported the incident as an incident involving 
a death or injury. This exclusion includes a claim for a non physical 
injury presented in the same document as a claim for death or a 
physical injury, and a claim for a non physical injury received by the 
manufacturer in the same reporting period as the claim for death or 
physical injury, regardless of which was received first. To clarify 
this point, we are adding a subsection to Section 579.28 that states 
that if a manufacturer has reported a claim or notice relating to an 
incident involving

[[Page 35134]]

death or injury, the manufacturer need not report a claim or notice 
arising out of the incident by a person who was not injured physically. 
For further discussion of this subsection, see Paragraph VI below 
relating to property damage claims.
    RMA also urged NHTSA to exclude non-physical injuries. It was 
concerned that such a requirement ``could lead to the filing of 
frivolous or baseless claims that may be part of a campaign designed 
solely to damage the reputation of a tire manufacturer.'' RMA has not 
demonstrated that in reality this would be a likely problem. We 
addressed the issue in the final rule. We further note that the rules 
of many courts preclude the filing of frivolous claims. See, e.g., Rule 
11(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. In any event, we will be able to deal with such 
matters during the screening process.
    5. Field report. We reviewed our revised redefinition of ``field 
report'' after its publication on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18136 at 18142) 
and concluded that it could be clarified and simplified by removal of 
some commas. We have revised the definition accordingly.
    6. Fire. The final rule defined ``fire'' to mean ``combustion or 
burning of any material in a vehicle as evidenced by, but not limited 
to, flame, smoke, sparks, or smoldering.'' The Alliance objected to the 
definition and asserted that the definition includes events which may 
not result in a fire. Consequently, in their view, the reporting 
category may overstate ``fires'' to the uninformed when ``they may 
involve nothing more than reports of exhaust smoke * * * .'' The 
Alliance recommended that the title of the reporting category be 
changed to ``FSSS'' to indicate that more events are included than just 
fire events, i.e., ``flame, smoke, sparks, or smoldering.''
    We agree that some of the events referred to under the current 
definition of ``fire'' are not generally considered fires as that term 
is normally used by the public. However, many of the system and 
component categories include items that are not fully consistent with a 
layman's use of the word. That is why we developed regulatory 
definitions. Therefore, we see no need to revise the definition as 
requested. However, we will make a wording change to clarify that not 
all events covered by the definition involve flame. Moreover, we have 
recently encountered euphemistic descriptions of fires by manufacturers 
as ``thermal events.'' We are adding a reference to ``thermal events'' 
to assure that they are not omitted in reporting. Of course, thermal 
events would not include heat generated by a normally operating engine 
or heating/cooling by a vehicle's climate control system. Therefore, 
the term ``fire'' is amended to mean

combustion or burning of any material or fuel in or from a vehicle 
as evidenced by flame. The term also includes, but is not limited 
to, thermal events and fire-related phenomena such as smoke, sparks, 
or smoldering, but does not include events and phenomena associated 
with a normally functioning vehicle such as combustion of fuel 
within the engine or exhaust from an engine.

    7. Handle. JPMA pointed out that the final rule requires child 
restraint system manufacturers to report incidents involving 
``handles.'' Because some child restraints do not have separate 
handles, and are designed to be carried by the shell, JPMA asserted 
that it is necessary to define ``handle'' as a separate element of a 
child restraint. It suggested a definition of ``handle,'' with which we 
generally concur. We are adopting a definition of ``handle'' to read as 
follows:

    Handle means any element of a child restraint system that is 
designed to facilitate carrying the restraint outside a motor 
vehicle, other than an element of the seat shell.

    8. Minimal specificity. Under the final rule, a tire manufacturer 
must report the aggregate number of property damage claims it received 
during a calendar quarter that identify the manufacturer, model, and 
tire line. The reporting manufacturer must also identify the component 
of the tire allegedly giving rise to the claim. However, if the 
property damage claim fails to specify the component, the manufacturer 
is not required to include the report in the aggregate number reported.
    RMA reiterated its comment to the NPRM that the tire identification 
number (TIN) be added to the definition of ``minimal specificity.'' Its 
request focused on property damage claims. RMA argued that a report of 
property damage claims is meaningless unless the TIN of the tire 
involved in the claim is known, and that, in many instances, the TIN 
and other information, including the component code to be identified, 
will not be specified in a claim. RMA urged us to ``reconsider this 
issue,'' and ``require the inclusion of the TIN information for 
purposes of satisfying the `minimal specificity' necessary to trigger a 
tire manufacturer's obligation to report property damage claims.'' In 
support, RMA argued that without the TIN, manufacturers will not be 
able to report at the level of the stock keeping unit (SKU) number for 
a tire, which is a required reporting element under Section 579.26. 
Without the TIN, RMA claimed that data could only be completed by tire 
line and size and would be of limited benefit to NHTSA. With respect to 
property damage claims, we agree and are amending the last sentence of 
Section 579.26(c) to state that ``No reporting is necessary if the 
system or component involved is not specified in such codes, or if the 
TIN is not specified in any property damage claim.'' As elsewhere under 
the early warning rule, the term ``claim'' includes both the initial 
document received by the manufacturer and subsequent documents. 
However, we are not changing the definition of minimal specificity with 
respect to tires, so claims and notices of deaths or injuries must be 
reported under Section 579.26(b) even if the TIN is not known. As 
specified in Section 579.28(f)(2)(i), if the tire manufacturer 
subsequently became aware of the TIN, it must submit an updated report.
    RMA also claimed that an actual physical inspection is necessary to 
provide meaningful information about potential tire problems. However, 
we decline RMA's suggestion to only report property damage claims 
involving tires that have been inspected. For early warning reporting 
purposes, we are collecting information on the basis of what is 
``claimed'' rather than the manufacturer's view of the claim.
    9. Model. Under the final rule, a child restraint system is defined 
as ``equipment.'' Under Section 579.25(a), manufacturers of child 
restraint systems must provide information on each make and ``model.'' 
For equipment, we defined ``model'' as ``the name that its manufacturer 
uses to designate it.'' JPMA asserted that the industry uses model 
designators for reasons that do not always correspond with structural 
or material differences in the product. Manufacturers may assign a 
different ``model number'' to identify different patterns on the pad 
fabric or to identify products destined for different retailers. 
Requiring reporting by ``model number'' could result in separating 
similar restraints into different reports. Accordingly, JPMA 
recommended that ``model'' be defined ``to be child restraints with the 
same shell and same restraint/harness system.'' Thus, in its opinion, 
child restraints offered with and without bases would be the same 
``model'' if they nevertheless have the same shell and restraint/
harness system. If two restraints use the same shell but different 
restraint/harness configurations, they would be defined as separate 
``models.''
    The definitional problem is that ``model'' has been defined to mean 
a ``name'' that a manufacturer uses to designate a vehicle or 
equipment. JPMA's comment did not indicate that child restraint system 
manufacturers use

[[Page 35135]]

the same name to identify systems with the same shell and restraint/
harness if they otherwise differ. However, it is our understanding that 
they do. We have considered whether adopting JPMA's suggested 
definition, which does not include ``base'' as a definitional 
criterion, might result in a reduction of reporting that could lead to 
a failure to receive early indicators of problems with bases. If Model 
X, for example, having the same shell and restraint/harness is 
manufactured in two configurations, one with a base and one without, 
and its manufacturer receives reportable data regarding the 
configuration with a base, the data cannot be realistically evaluated 
for early warning purposes if it is considered in the context of a 
total production that includes the configuration without a base. 
Ordinarily, it should be considered in the context of the total 
production of Model X systems with bases. Therefore, we have concluded 
that it is necessary to add ``base (if so equipped)'' to JPMA's 
suggested definition. Accordingly, we are amending the definition of 
``model'' to state that, for child restraint systems, model means ``the 
name that the manufacturer uses to identify child restraint systems 
with the same seat shell, buckle, base (if so equipped), and restraint 
system.'' Under this definition of ``model,'' a restraint system with 
the same seat shell, buckle, and restraint system would nevertheless be 
divided into different models for reporting purposes if it were 
available both with a base and without a base.
    10. Model year. With reference to vehicles and equipment to which 
manufacturers have not designated a model year, the definition of 
``model year'' in the final rule means the year in which the vehicle 
equipment item was produced. This year is generally understood to be 
the calendar year. Because the final rule contains numerous references 
to ``production year'' (see, e.g., Section 579.25) without a definition 
for the term, we have decided to revise the definition of ``model 
year'' and adopt a definition of ``production year.'' Under the revised 
definition, ``model year'' means ``the year that a manufacturer uses to 
designate a discrete model of vehicle, irrespective of the calendar 
year in which the vehicle was manufactured.'' The added term 
``production year'' means ``for a vehicle, the calendar year in which a 
vehicle is produced if the vehicle's manufacturer has not assigned it a 
model year. For equipment and tires, it means the calendar year in 
which the item was produced.''
    11. Seat shell. JPMA sought assurance that the term ``seat shell'' 
does not include ``shell accessories,'' such as the tether, the label, 
or the seat pad. The final rule defined ``seat shell'' to mean the 
component, be it plastic or other material, which forms the structural 
shape, form, and support for the child seating system and other 
components to allow the seat to be secured to a passenger seat. The 
``accessories'' listed by JPMA are not any of these components. JPMA 
also sought our assurance that accessories sold separately from child 
restraint systems (such as tether strap sets, latch retrofit units and 
bases) are not covered as well. We confirm that these separately-sold 
accessories are not covered under Section 579.25(c). However, 
information about claims or notices of deaths and injuries allegedly 
due to a defect in accessories such as tether strap sets, latch 
retrofit units and bases would have to be submitted pursuant to Section 
579.27.
    12. Service brake system. The definition of ``service brake 
system'' includes brake-related ``equipment installed in a vehicle in 
order to comply with FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, 122, or 135.'' The Alliance 
pointed out that certain components of the parking brake system (a 
separate defined system for early warning reporting purposes) are 
covered in Standards Nos. 105 and 135, and that the definition should 
be amended to clarify that ``service brake system'' does not include 
parking brakes. The point is well taken, and we are amending the 
definition to add an exclusion after the reference to ``135'' to read 
``(except equipment relating specifically to a parking brake).'' This 
will clarify that dual reporting is not required with respect to 
problems with a parking brake installed pursuant to either FMVSS No. 
105 or No. 135.
    13. Tire. RMA took issue with that portion of our definition of 
``tire'' that includes ``the tire inflation valves, tubes, and tire 
pressure monitoring regulating systems, as well as all associated 
switches, control units, connective elements (such as wiring harnesses, 
hoses, piping, etc.) and mounting elements (such as brackets, 
fasteners, etc.).'' The latter included tire pressure monitoring system 
components. RMA objected ``to including non-tire components'' on the 
grounds that NHTSA did not propose a definition of ``tire,'' and thus 
the industry had no chance to comment on it. They have taken the 
opportunity to comment in their request for reconsideration.
    Although we recognize that these components are not actually 
``tires'' in the common usage of the word, we believe that it is 
important to retain the definition as adopted in order to capture tire-
related information in the possession of vehicle manufacturers that can 
affect the performance of a tire on a vehicle, as well as the actual 
tire itself. Therefore, we are denying RMA's petition on this point. 
However, to clarify that the broad definition of tire does not affect 
the reporting responsibilities of tire manufacturers under Section 
579.26, we are amending the definition to state that it only applies to 
Sections 579.21-.24 and 579.27.
    14. Warranty claim. The definition of ``warranty claim'' excludes 
``work performed .* * * in connection with an emissions-related recall 
under the Clean Air Act.'' The Alliance requested us to amend this 
definition to exclude work performed in connection with any emissions-
related recall under state emissions laws, such as might be required by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). It asserted that such an 
exclusion is consistent with the exclusion of Federal emissions recall 
work. We agree that there is no need to report work to satisfy State 
emissions-related recalls such as CARB might require on the so-called 
California car which distinguishes it from the EPA-regulated vehicles 
for initial sale in almost all other states. See 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), 
7507; Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. N.Y. State, 17 F.3d 521 (2d 
Cir. 1994). Therefore, we are amending the definition of ``warranty 
claim'' to exclude ``claims for reimbursement * * * in connection with 
a motor vehicle emissions-related recall under the Clean Air Act, or, 
in accordance with State law as authorized under 42 U.S.C. 7543(b) or 
7507.''

V. Petition by the Alliance Requesting Clarification of Property Damage 
Claims To Be Reported by Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Tires

    With respect to the reporting of property damage claims with 
associated fatalities/injuries, the NPRM stated (66 FR 45846) that ``If 
the incident that allegedly led to the property damage also resulted in 
a death or injury, the manufacturer would only report the incident as 
one involving a death or injury, and it would not be required to report 
the incident under the property damage requirement. Otherwise there 
could be a misleading `double count.' '' The Alliance noted that this 
clarification was not repeated in the final rule and asked for 
confirmation ``that property damage claims are not separately 
reportable if the same

[[Page 35136]]

incident resulted in a reported death or injury.''
    Our omission in the final rule was unintentional. However, to 
simplify reporting by manufacturers, we will not require such property 
damage claims to be included. Therefore, we are adding new subsection 
(h) to Section 579.28, which also includes the exclusion of derivative 
claims discussed above, and which reads as follows:

    (h) When a report involving a claim or notice or is not 
required. If a manufacturer has reported a claim or notice relating 
to an incident involving death or injury, the manufacturer need not:
    (i) report a claim or notice arising out of the incident by a 
person who was not injured physically, and
    (ii) include in its number of property damage claims a property 
damage claim arising out of the incident.

    This exemption includes property damage claims that may be received 
during or subsequent to the quarter in which a claim or notice of death 
or injury is reported.
    We are redesignating existing subsections (h) through (l) as (i) 
through (m) respectively.

VI. Petition by JPMA To Reconsider Some Requirements of Section 579.25 
That Apply to Manufacturers of Child Restraint Systems

    JPMA commented that the preamble to the final rule indicated that 
child restraint system manufacturers would have to identify the 
``type'' of restraint (e.g., rear-facing infant seat, booster seat, or 
other) for which a quarterly report is being made. However, this 
requirement was not contained in Section 579.25. When NHTSA posted 
reporting templates on its Web site on August 14, 2002, only the 
production template specified that the ``type'' of child restraint be 
indicated. This requirement was not included in the templates for any 
of the substantive reporting categories such as death/injury. This led 
JPMA to believe that it was unclear ``what value it is to NHTSA to 
require segregating production numbers by `type.' ''
    Our omission of the word ``type'' in Section 579.25(a) was 
inadvertent, and we are correcting that omission here (we previously 
included ``type'' in Section 579.21(a), which applies to light 
vehicles). With regard to JPMA's other comment, the production template 
links the make, model, and production year with the ``type.'' The 
reporting templates for categories of death/injury, warranty/consumer 
complaints, etc., contain the make, model, and production year. The 
data reported on the production template provide the information which 
will allow us to link the make, model, and production year data on the 
death/injury, warranty/consumer complaints etc. to a particular 
``type.''
    JPMA also commented that the three reporting categories of ``rear 
facing infant seat,'' ``booster seat,'' and ``other'' do not cover the 
range of products available. It asked how its members should categorize 
a hybrid product that is both a rear-facing infant seat and a toddler 
seat. We believe that these three categories are sufficient; in 
response to the specific question, hybrids such as infant/toddler or 
toddler/booster should be reported under ``other.''
    We note here that the definitions of ``rear-facing infant seat,'' 
``booster seat,'' and ``other'' were revised in the earlier final rule 
on reconsideration, published on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18136).
    Section 579.25(b)(1) requires a child restraint manufacturer to 
submit ``a report on each incident involving one or more deaths or 
injuries that is identified in a claim against and received by the 
manufacturer * * *.'' JPMA asked for clarification of how its members 
should report to NHTSA ``when there are injuries to adults or 
unrestrained children in a collision that also involved an allegedly 
restrained child.'' JPMA presented the following example: Manufacturer 
A receives a claim for an injury to a child allegedly restrained in a 
child restraint manufactured by A. The same claim is also served on 
child restraint manufacturer B, in whose product a second child was 
allegedly injured, and on vehicle manufacturer C, in whose vehicle the 
two restrained children, their unrestrained brother, and their two 
parents were allegedly injured.
    In JPMA's view, it would contaminate the data base if JPMA member 
reports also included the adult injuries or unrestrained child injuries 
that occurred in the same motor vehicle collision, or if they included 
the injuries that allegedly occurred to a child restrained in a 
competitor's product. JPMA members will likely be on notice of these 
other injuries because any claim/lawsuit will list all the theories on 
which the claimants seek relief. JPMA sought our concurrence that only 
those injuries/fatalities to children purportedly restrained in child 
restraints manufactured by the reporting manufacturer should be 
reported by its members.
    We do not concur with JPMA's interpretation. The hypothetical 
presented by JPMA likely would result in a separate claim against two 
separate manufacturers of child restraints and the manufacturer of the 
motor vehicle in which the child restraints were installed. Each 
manufacturer is required to report only the claim against it; other 
manufacturers receiving a multiple-party claim will report the claim as 
it applies to them, which would relate to their products. Also, if a 
restraint broke and impacted a child seated in a different 
manufacturer's restraint, the manufacturer of the broken restraint 
would have to report a claim against it by the child in the other 
restraint.
    Another question asked by JPMA was whether the early warning 
reporting rule requires manufacturers to report warranty claims/
consumer complaints related to lower anchor/tether issues. The 
commenter observed that under NHTSA's definitions, all complaints/
claims regarding vehicle components installed in accordance with FMVSS 
No. 225 are reportable by the vehicle manufacturer as ``seat belt'' 
issues. We confirm JPMA's interpretation is correct, insofar as it 
states that child restraint manufacturers are not required to report on 
claims that by their terms are based on lower anchor/tether anchorage 
issues involving vehicle equipment. However, if a child restraint 
manufacturer receives a claim or a notice of death or injury alleging, 
for example, that a defect in the child restraint caused it to detach 
from such an anchorage, that claim or notice would have to be reported 
under Section 579.25(b).
    JPMA sought NHTSA's guidance on ``how to handle the situation in 
which a consumer complaint/warranty claim comes into the company but 
the production date is not ascertainable because the date code is not 
legible.''
    For child restraint systems, ``minimal specificity'' does not 
include the production year. Thus, the absence of a statement 
specifying the year the restraint was produced does not excuse the 
manufacturer from reporting a claim, notice, consumer complaint, 
warranty claim, or field report to the agency. This issue does not 
create a problem in the vehicle or tire context since the model/
production year is almost always known by the manufacturer through the 
VIN or the TIN. To address this situation in the child restraint system 
context, we will require manufacturers to add a separate category of 
``unknown'' model year (designated by the number ``9999'') in addition 
to the up-to-five production years on which they currently must report 
the number of consumer complaints/warranty claims. We are amending 
Section 579.25 appropriately. Moreover, since the production year may 
not be specified in a claim or notice involving other types of 
equipment (aside from tires) we are making a similar addition to 
Section 579.27(c).

[[Page 35137]]

These changes will also be reflected in the reporting templates.
    JPMA commented that child restraint systems are often returned to 
the manufacturer for inspection following a consumer complaint. In many 
cases, the inspection may also cover aspects of the system not directly 
related to the complaint of the customer who returned the restraint. 
JPMA cited as an example, ``a restraint returned for a customer 
complaint of a `sticky buckle' may be inspected and deemed to have a 
properly functioning buckle, but the inspector notes a deformation in 
the seat shell that indicates potential misuse.'' JPMA asked how a 
``field report'' describing that inspection should be categorized in 
the quarterly report.
    The fact that the employee or representative of the manufacturer 
who conducted the inspection believes that the buckle functioned 
properly and that the shell may have been misused in service does not 
excuse the manufacturer from reporting both of these conditions in the 
field report category. A written communication does not have to be 
verified or assessed to have merit to be reported in this category (see 
definition of ``field report''). In the example given, the report would 
be included in the number of field reports under both ``buckle and 
restraint harness'' and ``seat shell'' since there was an indication of 
a review and assessment related to both components. However, the 
original consumer complaint would only have to be reported in the 
``buckle and restraint harness'' category.
    Finally, JPMA pointed out that the template on NHTSA's Web site for 
reporting incidents of death or injury contains five spaces for 
entering a code number corresponding to one of four component codes, 
one for ``other'' and one for ``unknown,'' a total of six 
possibilities. JPMA asked that the templates be revised to add a sixth 
space.
    We do not believe that this is necessary. The spaces in the 
template are not dedicated to particular component categories, and 
there are no circumstances under which all six spaces would be required 
(e.g., a manufacturer reporting problems in all four component 
categories, and ``other'' as well, will not be reporting ``unknown'').

VII. Petition by RMA To Reconsider Some Requirements of Section 579.26 
That Apply to Manufacturers of Tires

    RMA asserted that the vast majority of property damage claims fail 
to provide information needed to properly categorize the tire or assign 
the proper component code for reporting. It cited a recent survey in 
which each of its six members reviewed ten consecutive property damage 
claims; of the 60 claims, only 13 had information concerning the 
condition of the tire allegedly associated with the claim. For this 
reason, it asked that tire manufacturers not be required to report a 
property damage claim until it had inspected a tire.
    Section 579.26(c) requires a report on the number of property 
damage claims ``which involve the components specified in codes 71 
through 73, and 98;'' that is to say, a tire manufacturer must report 
claims involving tread, sidewall, bead, or a component other than 
tread, sidewall, and bead. The operative word here is ``involve.'' A 
property damage claim need not be reported until the component 
``involved'' in the claim is identified in some fashion (especially for 
code 98). However, this does not mean that the manufacturer can wait 
until it inspects the tire, since the claim itself may identify an 
alleged problem component, and, in any event, the result of a 
manufacturer's inspection cannot justify a failure to report based on a 
claim. The manufacturer would include the claim in the number of claims 
for the quarter in which the component is identified, even if that is a 
different quarter from the one in which the manufacturer initially 
receives the claim. If the component is never identified, either by the 
claimant or upon the manufacturer's inspection of the tire, the 
manufacturer would not have to report the claim.
    RMA asked us to reconsider the decision we made in issuing the 
final rule (67 FR at 45853) not to include ``customer satisfaction 
conditions'' as a reportable category under ``warranty adjustments.'' 
We have re-examined the discussion of this issue in the NPRM (66 FR 
66190), RMA's comment to it, and our response in the preamble to the 
final rule, cited above. We have concluded that it is not necessary to 
establish a separate category to address RMA's concern. To explain: in 
the NPRM, proposed Section 579.27(c) referred to reporting by tire 
manufacturers of ``warranty claims (adjustments).'' The NPRM defined 
``warranty claim'' as including any claim presented to a manufacturer 
for payment pursuant to ``good will.'' ``Good will,'' in turn, was 
defined in the NPRM as repair or replacement ``not covered under 
warranty.'' RMA commented that not all good will claims would be 
captured in the categories of ``warranty claims (adjustment) that 
manufacturers must report on'' and that to capture all good will 
claims, we should add a category of ``customer satisfaction 
conditions.''
    The final rule differed from the proposal. With respect to tire 
manufacturers, the final rule adopted the term ``warranty adjustment,'' 
which was defined without reference to good will, i.e., a ``warranty 
adjustment'' is ``payment or other restitution'' by a tire manufacturer 
made pursuant ``to a warranty program offered by the manufacturer.'' 
The definition adopted for ``good will,'' which applies to all 
manufacturers, included, as proposed, repair or replacement ``not 
covered under warranty.'' The issue raised by RMA is that the warranty 
(adjustment) systems of tire manufacturers may or may not have separate 
entries/designations for ``good will.'' Thus, if a manufacturer's 
warranty (adjustment) program does not include restitution where the 
tread, bead, sidewall, or other component has not performed 
satisfactorily due to adverse operating conditions, customer abuse, or 
service abuse, but the manufacturer nevertheless compensates for them, 
it would not have to report these restitutions as ``warranty 
adjustments.'' However, this is not what we intended. To address this, 
we are amending the definition of ``warranty adjustment'' to include 
reference to ``a warranty program offered by the manufacturer or good 
will.''
    Notwithstanding this change, we also want to confirm that we adhere 
to our view that we do not want to receive data on warranty adjustments 
that do not relate to one or more of the four identified component 
categories. Information about adjustments made for other reasons (e.g., 
replacing three additional tires when only one experienced a problem) 
would not help us to identify potential safety defects.
    In the NPRM, we proposed that a manufacturer of tires need only 
report information (other than incidents involving a death, as 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, if the tires of the same 
size and design were not manufactured or imported in quantities greater 
than 15,000 in any single calendar year. However, the final rule 
substituted for the figure 15,000 ``tires that are limited production 
tires or are otherwise exempted from the Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards [UTQGS] by Section 575.104(c)(1)'' (i.e., ``deep tread, 
winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires 
with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less''). See the last 
sentence in the introductory paragraph of Section 579.26. A ``limited 
production tire'' is one that meets four criteria, ``as applicable,'' 
which are posited on

[[Page 35138]]

annual limits of 15,000, 10,000, and 35,000 tires. In its petition for 
reconsideration, RMA asserted that ``determining whether a tire meets 
the UTQGS exemption is not a simple matter and could lead to vastly 
different interpretations by tire manufacturers. Whether or not NHTSA 
intended the early warning reporting exemption to be identical to the 
UTQGS exemption, by doing so the agency has introduced a great deal of 
complexity into what should be a relatively straightforward issue.'' In 
light of this, RMA requested ``that the final rule be revised to exempt 
all tires with an annual production of 5,000 or less from the early 
warning reporting requirements in Sec. 579.26, and to delete the 
reference to UTQGS.''
    Our intent through this rulemaking has been to establish a 
threshold for full reporting of an annual production or importation of 
15,000 tires, as originally proposed (66 FR at 66225). Our decision to 
reference the UTQGS was an effort to simplify the process. It appears 
from RMA's statement that by referring to ``limited production tires,'' 
we inadvertently made it more complicated. Therefore, we have decided 
to return to the specific number of 15,000 tires per year. However, we 
will retain the exclusion from full reporting for the types of tires 
excepted by Section 575.104(c)(1), since we believe that full reports 
on such tires would be unlikely to yield valuable information. 
Accordingly, the excepted phrase has been amended to incorporate the 
substance of Section 575.104(c)(1) without referencing UTQGS.
    Our review of this issue revealed that we had made an inadvertent 
omission in the sentence establishing this exclusion. We stated that, 
with respect to the excluded tires, a manufacturer ``need only report 
information on incidents involving a death, as specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section.'' However, Section 579.26(b) actually requires 
reports of ``incidents involving death or injury'' (emphasis supplied). 
Therefore, we will add the words ``or injury'' to the sentence allowing 
exclusions from full reporting, which will now read:

    For each group of tires with the same SKU, plant, and year for 
which the volume produced or imported is less than 15,000, or are 
deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use 
spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, 
or are not passenger car tires, light truck tires, or motorcycle 
tires, the manufacturer need only report information on incidents 
involving a death or injury, as specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section.

    We decline to adopt RMA's suggestion to reduce the threshold to 
5,000 tires per year. While a lower threshold would result in 
additional reporting (and increase the reporting burden on 
manufacturers producing between 5,000 and 15,000 of a given tire 
annually), it is unlikely that this additional information would lead 
to the identification of significant numbers of safety defects.
    Under Section 579.26(d), a tire manufacturer must provide NHTSA 
with a list of common green tires on a quarterly basis. Included in the 
information to be provided is the plant where the common green tire was 
manufactured, brand names, and brand name owners. RMA asserted that 
this would not enhance the value of common green information, which is 
to be able to group tires ``according to common internal manufacturing 
specifications.'' We are willing to simplify reporting by tire 
manufacturers by eliminating the requirement identify the tire plant, 
which the RMA asserted is repetitive with production charts and may be 
linked through the SKU number provided in common green tire reporting. 
However, we believe that a tire fabricator must identify in the common 
green listing tire brand name and brand name owners for the applicable 
tire line. Otherwise, we would not have reports of who is a brand name 
owner and should be reporting under Subpart C. Accordingly, we are 
revising the second sentence of Section 579.26(d) to read as follows:

    (d) Common green tire reporting. * * * For each specific common 
green tire grouping, the list shall provide all relevant tire lines, 
tire type codes, SKU numbers, and brand name owners.

    RMA asked how manufacturers should treat tires that are imported as 
original equipment on imported motor vehicles, or imported as 
replacement tires. With respect to imported replacement tires, it 
recommended that the final rule be amended to allow tire manufacturers 
to report only the quantity of tires imported during the quarterly 
reporting period for purposes of complying with Section 579.26(a). For 
tires that are imported as original equipment on motor vehicles, RMA 
asserted that tire manufacturers do not have access to all information 
required by Section 579.26(a), since it is proprietary to the vehicle 
manufacturer. For such imported tires, tire manufacturers can only 
report fatalities and injuries ``for which they receive notification.'' 
RMA recommended that the final rule be revised ``to require tire 
manufacturers to report only injuries and fatalities associated with 
imported tires on OE vehicles.''
    The final rule requires reporting by a ``manufacturer'' who has 
imported tires into the United States. See Section 579.26(a). Clearly, 
this covers an importer of replacement tires who, by virtue of being an 
importer of motor vehicle equipment for resale, is a manufacturer as 
defined by statute. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(B).
    Under Section 579.26(a), a tire manufacturer must report 
``Information that states the manufacturer's name, the quarterly 
reporting period, the tire line, the tire size, the tire type code, the 
SKU, the plant where manufactured, whether the tire is approved for use 
as original equipment on a motor vehicle, if so, the make, model, and 
model year of each vehicle for which it is approved, the cumulative 
warranty production, and the cumulative total production through the 
end of the reporting period.'' An importer of tires for resale can 
determine this information from an examination of the tires, with the 
possible exception of the SKU, and the make, model, and model year of 
vehicles for which the tire is approved for original equipment. As the 
statute equates the act of importation with the act of production, the 
importer should not report total worldwide production, but only the 
number of tires of each tire line, size, etc., imported cumulatively 
through the end of the reporting period.
    We generally do not consider importers of motor vehicles (with 
tires manufactured abroad) to be importers of the tires installed as OE 
on their vehicles, even though such tires are considered as 
``replacement equipment'' for purposes of defect and noncompliance 
responsibility. See 49 CFR 573.4. Thus, with one exception (discussed 
below), we will not require importers of motor vehicles with foreign-
made tires installed on the vehicle when imported to report under 
Section 579.26 as a tire manufacturer (though they would be required to 
report as a tire manufacturer if they import such tires separately for 
replacement purposes). If a vehicle manufacturer receives a claim, 
complaint, or field report about a tire on one of its vehicles (whether 
the tire was manufactured in the United States or imported), it must 
report that claim, etc. in the ``tire'' component category (code 19). 
Such claims, etc., would have to be reported to us even if the vehicle 
manufacturer forwarded them to the tire manufacturer for action or 
payment.
    Nor would we expect tire manufacturers to report comprehensively on 
tires installed on new motor vehicles that they did not import 
themselves, since they would not have complete information as to

[[Page 35139]]

production or other matters. Nevertheless, tire manufacturers must 
report information that they do receive, from whatever source, 
regarding claims or notices of death or injury, property damage claims, 
and warranty adjustments on their tires in the United States, whether 
they imported them or not. If such information were not reported, we 
would have an incomplete picture of emerging safety problems with such 
tires.
    Notwithstanding the above discussion, an importer/manufacturer of 
vehicles equipped with tires at the time of importation must report as 
a tire manufacturer under Section 579.26 with respect to the tires 
installed as original equipment on its imported vehicles under the rare 
circumstance where the foreign fabricator of the tires does not itself 
import any tires into the United States and therefore would not be 
reporting any early warning information to us. We have made a 
corresponding revision to Section 579.26.
    Turning to motorcycle tires, RMA asserted that because of the way 
they are sold and distributed, it is not possible for tire 
manufacturers to identify the manufacturer of the motorcycle on which 
their tires will be OE, ``nor to easily obtain this information.'' It 
urged deletion of the OEM column from the early warning reporting 
format for motorcycle tires. We are retaining the column (for all 
tires) because where a tire manufacturer does know the make, model, and 
model year for the OE application(s) of a tire, that information should 
be reported. If the tire manufacturer knows that a particular tire 
line, size, etc. is not used as OE on any vehicles, it should state 
``N'' (for ``none'') in that field in the template. If it is not sure, 
it should state ``U'' (for ``unknown'') in that field.
    Section 579.26 requires the reporting of early warning data ``for 
each reporting period.'' The format that RMA suggested in its comment 
to the NPRM would provide for cumulative (i.e., to the date of the 
report) reporting. Although NHTSA adopted RMA's suggested format to a 
large extent, the final rule required quarterly rather than cumulative 
reporting. In its petition, RMA reiterated its view that Section 579.26 
should require the reporting of cumulative early warning data received 
by a manufacturer, by year of manufacture, through the end of each 
reporting period. We are denying RMA's petition on this point for the 
reasons stated in the final rule and because we want consistency in the 
manner of reporting among all manufacturers.
    Finally, RMA raised several concerns about disclosure of early 
warning data. The reconsideration of the early warning final rule is 
not the appropriate forum for resolving issues of substance regarding 
confidential submissions of early warning reporting information, which 
will be addressed in our ongoing rulemaking to revise 49 CFR Part 512.

VIII. Petition by the Alliance Requesting Reconsideration and 
Clarification of Some Requirements of Sections 579.21 and 579.28

    In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance contended that 
the requirement imposed by Section 579.28(b) to file reports ``not 
later than 30 days after the last day of the reporting period'' does 
not take into account that the 30th day could be a Saturday, Sunday, or 
Federal holiday. It suggested that the rule should explicitly provide 
that the due date would be the first business day following the weekend 
or Federal holiday. We are granting this request, and amending Section 
579.28(b) appropriately.
    Finally, in its letter of October 10, 2002, the Alliance noted an 
inconsistency between Section 579.21(c), and Sections 579.21(b) and 
(d). Section 579.21(c) requires submission of information relating to 
``the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the 
reporting period,'' whereas the information to be submitted under 
Sections 579.21(b) and (d) relates to vehicles ``less than ten calendar 
years old at the beginning of the reporting period.'' The Alliance 
recommended that subsections (b) and (d) be revised to use the same 
language as subsection (c). We are granting the Alliance's request, 
and, as well, are revising similar subsections in Sections 571.22-26.

IX. Issues Arising at NHTSA's Artemis Workshop

    In January 2003, we conducted a workshop to familiarize personnel 
from industry with the data collection and retention system that we 
have established for the submission of early warning reporting data 
(referred to as ``Artemis''). The workshop indicated several areas 
where clarifications and simplifications could be made, and we are 
``fine tuning'' the final rule with some minor amendments.

1. Cover Sheets

    Based on our previous experience with safety recalls and from a 
canvass of manufacturers at the workshop, some manufacturers may wish 
to provide cover sheets to explain or clarify one or more portions of 
the data they submit. For example, a manufacturer may wish to provide 
an explanation for a spike appearing in data regarding a particular 
make, model, and model year of vehicle. We are willing to accept cover 
sheets provided on a voluntary basis. They may be sent to the Chief of 
the Defect Assessment Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA.

2. Reporting of Deaths and Injuries

    At the workshop, some manufacturers requested that a new field be 
added to the Death and Injury Reporting Template that would allow a 
manufacturer to assign a unique alphanumeric code to its submission of 
information under paragraph (b) of Sections 579.21-26. We are adding 
this field to the data template but wish to emphasize that assigning 
such a code is voluntary and is not required. If a manufacturer has not 
assigned a code, it may leave the field blank.
    We also want to emphasize that subsequent submissions of 
information to supplement that previously reported is required only for 
reporting of incidents involving death or injury. See Section 579.28(f) 
and the associated preamble discussion at 67 FR 45862-63.
    The question arose whether a manufacturer who reports under Section 
579.27(a) must file a report on deaths and injuries at the end of a 
quarter in which it received no claims or notices of death or injury. 
The answer is no, and we are amending Section 579.27(b) to make this 
clear. To require such a report would impose an unnecessary burden upon 
low-volume vehicle manufacturers and manufacturers of original or 
replacement equipment other than child restraint systems and tires. On 
the other hand, we believe that reports should be required of all 
manufacturers reporting under Sections 579.21-.26 and cover all 
categories of reporting, even when no relevant information has been 
received during a quarter. If we do not require a ``zero'' report, we 
will not know at the end of a quarter whether a report is overdue. This 
will assure that we have an uninterrupted flow of reports. We are 
making an appropriate amendment to Section 579.28(b).

3. Field Reports

    The final rule requires that copies of non-dealer field reports be 
submitted ``alphabetically by make, within each make alphabetically by 
model, and within each model chronologically by model year.'' See, 
e.g., Section 579.21(d). This information standing alone will not allow 
us to easily identify, review, and analyze the subject of these field 
reports in any organized manner. We need to know the applicable 
system(s) or component(s) covered by a given field report. This

[[Page 35140]]

should not complicate reporting since manufacturers already have to 
review field reports to sort them by model and model year.
    To accomplish this goal, and to allow efficient analysis of these 
non-dealer field reports, we have developed a naming convention for 
them and have included an appropriate template on our website. That 
template will include fields to allow identification of the 
manufacturer submitting the field report, the make, model, and model 
year(s) of the vehicle(s) covered by the field report, and the 
component(s) or system(s) addressed in the report. If a non-dealer 
field report refers to more than one system or component category, the 
manufacturer must identify each such category, up to five such 
categories.
    While ordinarily a field report will address a single make/model of 
vehicle, we recognize that on occasion a field report may address more 
than one make/model. For example, a General Motors field report could 
address a possible problem with a component of the fuel system and 
specifically mention certain Buick and Pontiac passenger cars. In order 
to assure consistency and to simplify reporting, we have decided that, 
for vehicles, when a field report refers to more than one model built 
on a single platform (as defined in Section 579.4(c)), in the 
submission of field reports it should be identified by that platform 
rather than by one or more of the particular makes/models referred to 
in the field report. In the relatively rare case where a field report 
refers to makes/models built on more than one platform, in order to 
allow us to effectively use the information, manufacturers will be 
required to submit multiple copies, one for each platform.
    If a field report refers to more than one model year (or production 
year) of a given make/model or platform, the manufacturer shall submit 
it as though it applied to the earliest model year covered by the 
report. (However, when identifying the field report using the template, 
each model year covered by the report shall be specified.) We are 
making appropriate amendments in the sections on field reports to 
implement these changes.
    Electronic submissions of field reports must be submitted as one 
report per file, so that we will be able to identify and review them 
individually. However, where a number of files are involved, 
manufacturers may ``Zip'' the files together.

4. Designation of Types of Trailers and Medium-Heavy Trucks and Buses

    TTMA requested that we consider requiring trailer manufacturers to 
identify the ``model'' of trailers using the DOT VIN code designation, 
and provided a list of nine ``models.'' We have accepted this 
suggestion, but note that the ``models'' described by TTMA are more 
properly considered ``types.'' We are making an appropriate amendment 
to Section 579.24, adding a ``type'' field to the template, and 
amending the definition of ``type'' in Section 579.4(c) to specify, for 
trailers, that it refers to one of the ten separate categories, the 
nine suggested by TTMA (van trailer, flatbed, trailer converter dolly, 
lowbed, dump, tank, dry bulk, live stock, boat, auto transporter, and 
other), plus recreational trailers.
    We had previously required manufacturers to identify the ``type'' 
of light vehicles and of child restraint systems. The TTMA request has 
led us to conclude that it would also be appropriate to also require 
manufacturers of medium-heavy vehicles and buses to identify the 
``type'' of such vehicle. Viewed broadly, these types include truck, 
tractor, school bus as defined in 49 CFR 571.3, transit bus (a bus for 
local travel), coach (a bus for intercity travel), recreational vehicle 
(a motor vehicle other than a trailer that is designed and equipped for 
leisure travel), emergency vehicle (a motor vehicle, other than a light 
vehicle, designed for emergency service, such as fire fighting, 
ambulance, rescue, police use, and similar applications), and other (a 
medium heavy vehicle or bus not otherwise included in the types listed 
above). Therefore, we are making appropriate amendments to Sections 
579.22 and 579.4(c), and to the template for this category of vehicles.

5. Tires

    At the workshop, some tire manufacturers asked that they be allowed 
to use the DOT standardized plant code that NHTSA assigns (see 49 CFR 
574.5(a) and 574.6(b)) for tires produced for sale in the United States 
as an identification of the plant where a tire was manufactured when 
they submit information required by Section 579.26(a) and (c). We have 
concurred with this. If a tire manufacturer so chooses, it may 
reference the two-character DOT alphanumeric codes for U.S.-located 
production plants. However, the full plant name must be provided for 
foreign tire production plants.

6. Correction of Section 579.23(c)

    The reporting requirements for motorcycle manufacturers cover 20 
specific systems or components identified by codes 01-20 in Section 
579.23(b)(2). Section 579.23(c) erroneously refers to ``codes 01 
through 22 in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.'' We are correcting the 
reference to ``22'' in subsection (c) to ``20.''

X. 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.

XI. Rulemaking Analyses

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

[[Page 35141]]

procedures. A detailed discussion of impacts can be found in the Final 
Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) that the agency has prepared for this 
rulemaking and filed in the docket. 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. Sec.  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 may reduce burdens on some small manufacturers 
although not in a quantifiable way.
    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 may reduce paperwork burdens on some manufacturers though not 
in a quantifiable way.
    Data Quality Act. Section 515 of the FY 2001 Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-554, Sec.  515, codified at 
44 U.S.C. Sec.  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 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 in 49 CFR Part 579

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

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 49 CFR part 579 is amended as 
follows:

[[Page 35142]]

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

0
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

0
2. Section 579.4(c) is amended by revising the definitions of ``Field 
report,'' ``Fire,'' the second sentence of ``Model,'' ``Model year,'' 
the first sentence of ``Service brake system,'' ``SKU (Stock Keeping 
Unit),'' ``Tire,'' ``Warranty adjustment,'' and the second sentence of 
``Warranty claim,'' and adding the definitions of ``Control,'' 
``Handle,'' a third sentence to ``Model,'' ``Production year,'' and two 
new sentences in the definition of ``Type'' before the present second 
sentence, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  579.4  Terminology.

* * * * *
    (c) Other terms. * * *
    Control (including the terms controlling, controlled by, and under 
common control with) means the possession, direct or indirect, of the 
power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies 
of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by 
contract, or otherwise.
* * * * *
    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, or from 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.
    Fire means combustion or burning of material in or from a vehicle 
as evidence by flame. The term also includes, but is not limited to, 
thermal events and fire-related phenomena such as smoke, sparks, or 
smoldering, but does not include events and phenomena associated with a 
normally functioning vehicle, such as combustion of fuel within an 
engine or exhaust from an engine.
* * * * *
    Handle means any element of a child restraint system that is 
designed to facilitate carrying the restraint outside a motor vehicle, 
other than an element of the seat shell.
* * * * *
    Model * * * For equipment other than child restraint systems, it 
means the name that the manufacturer uses to designate it. For child 
restraint systems, it means the name that the manufacturer uses to 
identify child restraint systems with the same seat shell, buckle, base 
(if so equipped) and restraint system.
    Model year means the year that a manufacturer uses to designate a 
discrete model of vehicle, irrespective of the calendar year in which 
the vehicle was manufactured. If the manufacturer has not assigned a 
model year, it means the calendar year in which the vehicle was 
manufactured.
* * * * *
    Production year means, for equipment and tires, the calendar year 
in which the item was produced.
* * * * *
    Service brake system means all components of the service braking 
system of a motor vehicle intended for the transfer of braking 
application force from the operator to the wheels of a vehicle, 
including the foundation braking system, such as the brake pedal, 
master cylinder, fluid lines and hoses, braking assist components, 
brake calipers, wheel cylinders, brake discs, brake drums, brake pads, 
brake shoes, and other related equipment installed in a motor vehicle 
in order to comply with FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, 122, or 135 (except 
equipment relating specifically to a parking brake). * * *
* * * * *
    SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) means the alpha-numeric designation 
assigned by a manufacturer to uniquely identify a tire product. This 
term is sometimes referred to as a product code, a product ID, or a 
part number.
    Tire means an item of motor vehicle equipment intended to interface 
between the road and a motor vehicle. The term includes all the tires 
of a vehicle, including the spare tire. For purposes of 
Sec. Sec. 579.21 through 579.24 and Sec. 579.27 of this part, this term 
also includes the tire inflation valves, tubes, and tire pressure 
monitoring and regulating systems, as well as all associated switches, 
control units, connective elements (such as wiring harnesses, hoses, 
piping, etc.), and mounting elements (such as brackets, fasteners, 
etc.).
* * * * *
    Type * * * In the context of a medium heavy vehicle and bus, it 
means one of the following categories: Truck, tractor, transit bus, 
school bus, coach, recreational vehicle, emergency vehicle, or other. 
In the context of a trailer, it means one of the following categories: 
Recreational trailers, van trailers, flatbed trailer, trailer converter 
dolly, lowbed trailer, dump trailer, tank trailer, dry bulk trailer, 
livestock trailer, boat trailer, auto transporter, or other. * * *
* * * * *
    Warranty adjustment means any payment or other restitution, such 
as, but not limited to, replacement, repair, credit, or cash refund, 
made by a tire manufacturer to a consumer or to a dealer, in 
reimbursement for payment or other restitution to a consumer, pursuant 
to a warranty program offered by the manufacturer or goodwill.
    Warranty claim * * * It does not include claims for reimbursement 
for costs or related expenses for work performed to remedy a safety-
related defect or noncompliance reported to NHTSA under part 573 of 
this chapter, or in connection with a motor vehicle emissions-related 
recall under the Clean Air Act or in accordance with State law as 
authorized under 42 U.S.C. 7543(b) or 7507.

Subpart C--Reporting of Early Warning Information

0
3. The introductory text of paragraph (b) and paragraph (d) of 
Sec. 579.21 are revised to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
light vehicles manufactured during a model year covered by the 
reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model 
year in the reporting period:
* * * * *
    (d) Copies of field reports. For all light vehicles manufactured 
during a model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model 
years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, a copy 
of each field report (other than a dealer report) involving one or more 
of the systems or components identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, or fire, or rollover, containing any assessment of an alleged 
failure,

[[Page 35143]]

malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a 
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment (including any part 
thereof) that is originated by an employee or representative of the 
manufacturer and that the manufacturer received during a reporting 
period. These documents shall be submitted alphabetically by make, 
within each make alphabetically by model, and within each model 
chronologically by model year. For purposes of this paragraph, if a 
field report refers to more than one make or model of light vehicle 
produced by a manufacturer on a particular platform, the manufacturer 
shall submit the report alphabetically by platform rather than by make 
or model. If such a field report refers to more than one platform, 
separate copies shall be submitted for each such platform. If a field 
report refers to more than one model year of a specified make/model or 
platform, the manufacturer shall submit it by the earliest model year 
to which it refers.

0
4. In Sec. 579.22, the first sentence of paragraph (a), the 
introductory text of paragraph (b), and paragraph (d) are revised to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) Production information. Information that states the 
manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the make, the 
model, the model year, the type, and the production. * * *
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
medium heavy vehicles and buses manufactured during a model year 
covered by the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the 
earliest model year in the reporting period:
* * * * *
    (d) Copies of field reports. For all medium heavy vehicles and 
buses manufactured during a model year covered by the reporting period 
and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the 
reporting period, a copy of each field report (other than a dealer 
report) involving one or more of the systems or components identified 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or fire, or rollover, containing 
any assessment of an alleged failure, malfunction, lack of durability, 
or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle equipment (including any part thereof) that is originated by an 
employee or representative of the manufacturer and that the 
manufacturer received during a reporting period. These documents shall 
be submitted alphabetically by make, within each make alphabetically by 
model, and within each model chronologically by model year. For 
purposes of this paragraph, if a field report refers to more than one 
make or model of vehicle produced by a manufacturer on a particular 
platform, the manufacturer shall submit the report alphabetically by 
platform rather than by make or model. If such a field report refers to 
more than one platform, separate copies shall be submitted for each 
such platform. If a field report refers to more than one model year of 
a specified make/model or platform, the manufacturer shall submit it by 
the earliest model year to which it refers.

0
5. In Sec. 579.23, the number ``22'' in paragraph (c) is revised to 
read ``20'', and the introductory text of paragraph (b) and paragraph 
(d) are revised to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
motorcycles manufactured during a model year covered by the reporting 
period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the 
reporting period:
* * * * *
    (d) Copies of field reports. For all motorcycles manufactured 
during a model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model 
years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, a copy 
of each field report (other than a dealer report) involving one or more 
of the systems or components identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section or fire, containing any assessment of an alleged failure, 
malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a 
motorcycle or item of motor vehicle equipment (including any part 
thereof) that is originated by an employee or representative of the 
manufacturer and that the manufacturer received during a reporting 
period. These documents shall be submitted alphabetically by make, 
within each make alphabetically by model, and within each model 
chronologically by model year. For purposes of this paragraph, if a 
field report refers to more than one make or model of motorcycle 
produced by a manufacturer on a particular platform, the manufacturer 
shall submit the report alphabetically by platform rather than by make 
or model. If such a field report refers to more than one platform, 
separate copies shall be submitted for each such platform. If a field 
report refers to more than one model year of a specified make/model or 
platform, the manufacturer shall submit it by the earliest model year 
to which it refers.

0
6. In Sec. 579.24, paragraph (a), the introductory text of paragraph 
(b), and paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) Production information. Information that states the 
manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the make, the 
model, the model year, the type, and the production. The production 
shall be stated as either the cumulative production of the current 
model year to the end of the reporting period, or the total model year 
production for each model year for which production has ceased. For 
each model that is manufactured and available with more than one type 
of service brake system (i.e., hydraulic and air), the information 
required by this subsection shall be reported by each of the two brake 
types (i.e., ``H'' for hydraulic, ``A'' for air). If the service brake 
system in a trailer is not readily characterized as either hydraulic or 
air, the trailer shall be considered to have hydraulic service brakes. 
If a model has no brake system, it shall be reported as ``N,'' for 
none.
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
trailers manufactured during a model year covered by the reporting 
period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the 
reporting period:
* * * * *
    (d) Copies of field reports. For all trailers manufactured during a 
model year covered by the reporting period and the nine model years 
prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, a copy of 
each field report (other than a dealer report) involving one or more of 
the systems or components identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section or fire, containing any assessment of an alleged failure, 
malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a 
trailer or item of motor vehicle equipment (including any part thereof) 
that is originated by an employee or representative of the manufacturer 
and that the manufacturer received during a reporting period. These 
documents shall be submitted alphabetically by make, within each make 
alphabetically by model, and within each model chronologically by model 
year. For purposes of this paragraph, if a field report refers to more 
than one make or model of trailer produced by a manufacturer on a 
particular platform, the manufacturer

[[Page 35144]]

shall submit the report alphabetically by platform rather than by make 
or model. If such a field report refers to more than one platform, 
separate copies shall be submitted for each such platform. If a field 
report refers to more than one model year of a specified make/model or 
platform, the manufacturer shall submit it by the earliest model year 
to which it refers.

0
7. Sec. 579.25 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of the 
introductory text, by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) and 
the introductory text of paragraph (b), by adding a sentence at the end 
paragraph (b)(2), and by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


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

    * * * For paragraph (c) of this section, if any consumer complaints 
or warranty claims regarding a model of child restraint system do not 
specify the production year of the system, the manufacturer shall 
submit information for ``unknown'' production year in addition to the 
up-to-five production years for which the manufacturer must otherwise 
report the number of such consumer complaints/warranty claims.
    (a) Production information. Information that states the 
manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the make, the 
model, the production year, the type, and the production. * * *
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
child restraint systems manufactured during a production year covered 
by the reporting period and the four production years prior to the 
earliest production year in the reporting period:
* * * * *
    (2) * * * If the production year of the child restraint system is 
unknown, the manufacturer shall specify the number ``9999'' in the 
field for production year.
* * * * *
    (d) Copies of field reports. For all child restraint systems 
manufactured during a production year covered by the reporting period 
and the four production years prior to the earliest production year in 
the reporting period, a copy of each field report (other than a dealer 
report) involving one or more of the systems or components identified 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, containing any assessment of an 
alleged failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance 
problem of a child restraint system (including any part thereof) that 
is originated by an employee or representative of the manufacturer and 
that the manufacturer received during a reporting period. These 
documents shall be submitted alphabetically by make, within each make 
alphabetically by model, and within each model chronologically by 
production year. For purposes of this paragraph, if a field report 
refers to more than one make or model of child restraint system 
produced by a manufacturer, the manufacturer shall submit the report 
under the first such model in alphabetical order. If a field report 
refers to more than one production year of a specified make/model, the 
manufacturer shall submit it by the earliest production year to which 
it refers.

0
8. In Sec. 579.26, the introductory text is revised, a sentence is 
added at the end of paragraph (a), introductory text is added in 
paragraph (b), and the last sentences of paragraph (c) and of paragraph 
(d) 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 purposes of this section, an importer of 
motor vehicles for resale is deemed to be the manufacturer of the tires 
on and in the vehicle at the time of its importation if the 
manufacturer of the tires is not required to report under 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. For 
each group of tires with the same SKU, plant where manufactured, and 
year for which the volume produced or imported is less than 15,000, or 
are deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use 
spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or 
are not passenger car tires, light truck tires, or motorcycle tires, 
the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving a 
death or injury, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. For 
purposes of this section, the two-character DOT alphanumeric code for 
production plants located in the United States assigned by NHTSA in 
accordance with Sec. Sec. 574.5(a) and 574.6(b) of this chapter may be 
used to identify ``plant where manufactured.'' If the production plant 
is located outside the United States, the full plant name must be 
provided.
    (a) Production information. * * * If the manufacturer knows that a 
particular group of tires is not used as original equipment on a motor 
vehicle, it shall state ``N'' in the appropriate field, and if the 
manufacturer is not certain, it shall state ``U'' in that field.
    (b) Information on incidents involving death or injury. For all 
tires manufactured during a production year covered by the reporting 
period and the four production years prior to the earliest production 
year in the reporting period:
* * * * *
    (c) Numbers of property damage claims and warranty adjustments. * * 
* No reporting is necessary if the system or component involved is not 
specified in such codes, or if the TIN is not specified in any property 
damage claim.
    (d) Common green tire reporting. * * * For each specific common 
green tire grouping, the list shall provide all relevant tire lines, 
tire type codes, SKU numbers, brand names, and brand name owners.

0
9. Section 579.27 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (b) and by adding a new paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  579.27  Reporting requirements for manufacturers of fewer than 
500 vehicles annually, for manufacturers of original equipment, and for 
manufacturers of replacement equipment other than child restraint 
systems and tires.

* * * * *
    (b) Information on incidents involving deaths. * * * If a 
manufacturer has not received such a claim or notice during a reporting 
period, the manufacturer need not submit a report to NHTSA for that 
reporting period.
    (c) * * *
    (6) For original and replacement equipment, if the production year 
of the equipment is unknown, the manufacturer shall specify the number 
``9999'' in the field for model or production year.

0
10. Section 579.28 is amended by adding two sentences at the end of 
paragraph (b), by redesignating paragraphs (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) 
as (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m), respectively, and by adding new 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Due date of reports. * * * Except as provided in 
Sec. 579.27(b), if a manufacturer has not received any of

[[Page 35145]]

the categories of information or documents during a quarter for which 
it is required to report pursuant to Sec. Sec. 579.21 through 579.26, 
the manufacturer's report must indicate that no relevant information or 
documents were received during that quarter. If the due date for any 
report is a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the report shall be 
due on the next business day.
* * * * *
    (h) When a report involving a claim or notice is not required. If a 
manufacturer has reported a claim or notice relating to an incident 
involving death or injury, the manufacturer need not:
    (1) Report a claim or notice arising out of the incident by a 
person who was not injured physically, and
    (2) Include in its number of property damage claims a property 
damage claim arising out of the incident.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 579.29(b) is amended by adding a new last sentence to read 
as follows:


Sec.  579.29  Manner of reporting.

* * * * *
    (b) Submission of documents. * * * Each document shall be 
identified in accordance with the templates provided at NHTSA's early 
warning Web site, which is identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
* * * * *

    Issued on: June 5, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-14702 Filed 6-6-03; 4:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P