[Federal Register: December 21, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 246)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 66189-66226]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de01-24]                         


[[Page 66189]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 574 et al.



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


[[Page 66190]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 574, 576, 579

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-8677; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AI25

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

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes a regulation that would implement the 
``early warning reporting requirements'' of the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Under this 
proposal, motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers would 
be required to report information and to submit documents on customer 
satisfaction campaigns and other activities that may assist in 
identifying defects related to motor vehicle safety.
    We are also proposing amendments to NHTSA's general and tire 
recordkeeping regulations (Parts 576 and 574) to assure that 
manufacturers retain the information that must be reported to NHTSA 
under the early warning rule.

DATES: Comment Closing Date: Comments must be received on or before 
February 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: All comments on this NPRM should refer to the docket and 
notice number set forth above and be submitted to Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The docket 
room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Jonathan 
White, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA (phone: 202-366-5226). 
For legal issues, contact Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA 
(phone: 202-366-5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Background: The TREAD Act (Public Law 106-414)
III. Manufacturers That Would Be Covered by the New Reporting 
Requirements
    A. Manufacturers of motor vehicles.
    B. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.
    1.Original equipment.
    2.Replacement equipment, including tires.
    C. Foreign manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment.
    D. Other representatives of manufacturers.
IV. Information That Would Be Reported
    A. Production information.
    B. Claim: a proposed definition.
    C. Notice: a proposed definition.
    D. Identification of the product in claims and notices.
    E. Claims and notices involving death.
    1. Whether to define ``death''
    2. Claims involving death.
    3. Notices involving death.
    4. Information about deaths.
    F. Claims and notices involving injuries.
    1. The difficulties of defining ``serious injury.''
    2. Reporting of incidents in which persons were injured, based 
on claims and notices.
    G. Other possible conditions on reporting of claims and notices 
for death and injury.
    H. Identical or substantially similar motor vehicles or 
equipment.
    1. The meaning of ``identical.''
    2. Substantially similar motor vehicles.
    3. Substantially similar motor vehicle equipment and tires.
    I. Claims and notices involving property damage.
    1. Definition of ``property damage,'' and whether to define 
``aggregate statistical data.''
    2. Reports involving property damage.
    J. Consumer complaints.
    1. Definition of ``consumer complaint.''
    2. The rationale of requiring reports of consumer complaints.
    K. Warranty claims information.
    1. Definitions of ``warranty'' and ``warranty claim.''
    2. Reports involving warranty claims.
    L. Field reports.
    1. Definition of ``field report.''
    2. Reporting of field reports.
    M. Customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer advisories; 
recalls, or other activities involving the repair or replacement of 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.
    N. Components, systems, and fires to be included in reports.
    O. One-time reporting of information on certain information 
received from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002, on 1994-2003 
model year vehicles, and on child restraints and tires manufactured 
on or after January 1, 1998.
V. Information That We Would Not Require at This Time
    A. Internal investigations and design changes in parts and 
components.
    B. Most activities and events in foreign countries.
VI. When Information Would be Reported
    A. Periodically.
    B. Upon NHTSA's request.
VII. The Manner and Form in Which Information Would be Reported
VIII. How NHTSA Plans to Handle and Utilize Early Warning 
Information
    A. Review and use of information.
    B. Information in the possession of the manufacturer.
    C. Disclosure.
    D. The proposed requirements are not unduly burdensome.
    E. Periodic Review.
IX. Proposed Extension of Recordkeeping Requirements to Include 
Manufacturers of Child Restraint Systems and Tires
X. Administrative Amendments to 49 CFR Part 573 to Accommodate Final 
Rules Implementing 49 U.S.C. Sections 30166(l) and (m)
XI. Rulemaking Analyses

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule--the first phase of early warning reporting 
rulemaking--would in effect divide manufacturers of motor vehicles 
and motor vehicle equipment into two groups with different 
responsibilities for reporting information that could indicate the 
existence of potential safety related defects.
    The first group would consist of larger manufacturers of motor 
vehicles, and all manufacturers of child restraint systems and 
tires. In general, vehicle manufacturers would report separately on 
five categories of vehicles (if they produced, imported, or sold 500 
or more of a category annually in the United States): light 
vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. 
These manufacturers would report certain specified information about 
each incident involving a death that occurred in the United States 
that is identified in a claim against the manufacturer or in a 
notice to the manufacturer alleging or proving that the death was 
caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer's product together 
with each death occurring in foreign countries that is identified in 
a claim against the manufacturer involving the manufacturer's 
product, or one that is identical or substantially similar to a 
product that the manufacturer has offered for sale in the United 
States. These manufacturers would also report the following:
     Injuries. Certain specified information about each 
incident that occurred in the United States in which a person was 
injured that is identified in a claim against the manufacturer or in 
a notice to the manufacturer alleging or proving that the injury was 
caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer's product.
     Property damage. Manufacturers other than child seat 
manufacturers would report the numbers of claims for $1,000 or more 
in property damage that occurred in the United States that are 
related to alleged problems with certain specified components and 
systems (there would be no minimum amount of property damage for 
claims received by tire manufacturers).
     Consumer complaints. Manufacturers (other than tire 
manufacturers) would report the numbers of consumer complaints they 
receive that are related to problems with certain specified 
components and systems that occurred in the United States.
     Warranty claims information. Manufacturers would report 
the number of warranty claims they receive that are related to 
problems with certain specified components and systems that occurred 
in the United States.
     Field reports. Manufacturers would report the total 
number of field reports they

[[Page 66191]]

receive from the manufacturer's employees and dealers, and from 
fleets, that are related to problems with certain specified 
components and systems and potential defects that occurred in the 
United States. In addition, manufacturers would provide copies of 
reports received from their employees and fleets, but would not need 
to provide copies of reports received from dealers.
    These manufacturers would report the numbers identified above 
for each model and model or production year.
    A tire manufacturer or brand name owner would not have to report 
any information other than information relating to incidents 
involving deaths for tires of the same size and design for which the 
cumulative annual production and importation does not exceed 15,000 
(readers should note this exclusion in reviewing the proposed 
reporting requirements of this document, as we may not repeat it in 
all instances in which it may apply).
    The second group would consist of all other manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, i.e., vehicle 
manufacturers insofar as they produced, imported, or sold in the 
United States fewer than 500 light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, 
buses, motorcycles, or trailers annually, manufacturers of original 
motor vehicle equipment and manufacturers of replacement motor 
vehicle equipment other than child restraint systems and tires. 
These manufacturers would report the same information about 
incidents involving deaths as the first category, but would not be 
required to report any other information.
    In addition, all vehicle and equipment manufacturers in both 
groups would be required to provide copies of all documents sent or 
made available to more than one dealer, distributor, or owner, in 
the United States with respect to consumer advisories, recalls, or 
activities involving the repair or replacement of vehicles or 
equipment.
    Reports would be submitted electronically, in specified formats. 
The components and systems on which reporting would be required 
would vary, depending on the type of product involved.
    There would be four reporting periods each calendar year of 
three months each. All reports would be due not later than 30 days 
after the end of a calendar quarter. For submission of documents, 
the documents would be due not later than 30 days after the end of 
the month in which they are received or generated by the 
manufacturer. To help NHTSA identify trends that could indicate 
potential safety problems, manufacturers would be required, on a 
one-time basis, to report historical information by quarter for each 
of the reportable items covering the three-year period from January 
1, 2000 through December 31, 2002, the date preceding the beginning 
of the first reporting period that would be established by the final 
rule, January 1, 2003.
    The early warning reporting requirements would comprise subpart 
C of a new 49 CFR Part 579. The foreign defect reporting 
requirements proposed on October 11, 2001 (66 FR 51907) would 
comprise Subpart B of Part 579. This NPRM proposes a Subpart A 
containing general requirements that will apply to both subparts.
    We also propose to expand recordkeeping requirements:
     For vehicles, records now required to be maintained 
under 49 CFR Part 576 for eight years would have to be maintained 
for 10 years.
     For the first time, manufacturers of tires and child 
restraint systems would be required to maintain the same types of 
records that manufacturers of vehicles have been required to keep 
under 49 CFR Part 576.
     Manufacturers of tires would be required to retain for 
five years records of purchasers of tires they manufacture. 
Manufacturers of motor vehicles would be required to retain for five 
years records of tires on each vehicle manufactured and the 
purchaser of each vehicle. Currently, 49 CFR Part 574 requires that 
these records be retained for three years.
The early warning final rule, the final rule pertaining to foreign 
defect campaigns, and current 49 CFR 573.8 would become 49 CFR Part 
579. The provisions of current Part 579 would be moved to Part 573. 
Proposed effective dates: for amendments to Parts 574 and 576, 30 
days after publication of the final rule; for revised Part 579, 
January 1, 2003.

II. Background: The TREAD Act (Public Law 106-414)

    The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, Public 
Law 106-414.
    The TREAD Act provides for NHTSA to require manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to submit information, 
periodically or upon NHTSA's request, that includes claims for 
deaths and serious injuries, property damage data, communications to 
customers and others, information on incidents resulting in 
fatalities or serious injuries from possible defects in vehicles or 
equipment in the United States or in identical or substantially 
similar vehicles or equipment in a foreign country, and other 
information that would assist NHTSA in identifying potential safety-
related defects.
    The TREAD Act amends 49 U.S.C. 30166 to add a new subsection 
(m), Early warning reporting requirements. Sections 30166(m)(3), 
(4), and (5) address, respectively, the elements to be reported, the 
handling and utilization of reported information, and periodic 
review and update of the final rule.
    The crux of the early warning provisions is Section 30166(m)(3), 
which states: (3) Reporting elements.
    (A) Warranty and claims data. As part of the final rule * * * 
the Secretary [of Transportation] shall require manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to report, periodically 
or upon request by the Secretary, information which is received by 
the manufacturer derived from foreign and domestic sources to the 
extent that such information may assist in the identification of 
defects related to motor vehicle safety in motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment in the United States and which concerns--
    (i) data on claims submitted to the manufacturer for serious 
injuries (including death) and aggregate statistical data on 
property damage from alleged defects in a motor vehicle or in motor 
vehicle equipment; or
    (ii) customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer advisories, 
recalls, or other activity involving the repair or replacement of 
motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.
    (B) Other data. As part of the final rule * * *, the Secretary 
may, to the extent that such information may assist in the 
identification of defects related to motor vehicle safety in motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in the United States, require 
manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to 
report, periodically or upon request of the Secretary, such 
information as the Secretary may request.
    (C) Reporting of possible defects. The manufacturer of a motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall report to the Secretary, in 
such manner as the Secretary establishes by regulation, all 
incidents of which the manufacturer receives actual notice which 
involve fatalities or serious injuries which are alleged or proven 
to have been caused by a possible defect in such manufacturer's 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in the United States, or in 
a foreign country when the possible defect is in a motor vehicle or 
motor vehicle equipment that is identical or substantially similar 
to a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment offered for sale in 
the United States.
    The Secretary has delegated to the NHTSA Administrator the 
authority to carry out 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (49 CFR 1.50(a)).
    On January 22, 2001, we issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) to discuss and to solicit comments on the ways in 
which NHTSA may best implement these statutory provisions (66 FR 
6532). The reader is referred to that document for a discussion of 
the background of the TREAD Act and a manufacturer's reporting 
obligations prior to the TREAD Act. On October 11, 2001, we issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement another 
provision of the TREAD Act, adding Section 30166(l) to Title 49 (66 
FR 51907). Subsection (l) also applies to manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment; it requires them to notify us 
of defect campaigns that they conduct outside the United States, or 
are ordered by a foreign government to conduct abroad, on vehicles 
and equipment identical or substantially similar to those sold in 
the United States. Readers are requested to review that NPRM in 
parallel with the early warning NPRM to ensure consistency between 
application and definitions as we intend for each final rule to 
become a subchapter of Part 579.
    In response to the ANPRM, we received comments from a variety of 
sources. Motor vehicle manufacturers and associated trade 
organizations who commented were Ford Motor Company (Ford), Volvo 
Trucks North America (Volvo), the Truck Manufacturers Association 
(TMA), Blue Bird Body Co. (Blue Bird), International Truck and 
Engine Corporation (International Truck), Mack Trucks, Inc. (Mack), 
DaimlerChrysler

[[Page 66192]]

Corporation (DaimlerChrysler), the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), the Recreational Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA), Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-
Davidson), Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), Volkswagen of 
America, Inc. (for itself, Volkswagen, AG and Audi AG) (Volkswagen), 
the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA), American Honda 
Motor Company (Honda), the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), the 
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), Fontaine 
Modification Company (Fontaine), and the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (the Alliance). The tire industry was represented by 
the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the Bridgestone 
Corporation. Other motor vehicle equipment manufacturers and 
associated trade organizations who commented were the Automotive 
Occupants Restraint Council (AORC), TRW, Inc. (TRW), Atwood Mobile 
Products (Atwood), the Battery Council International, ArvinMeritor, 
Peterson Manufacturing Company, the Motor and Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and the Original Equipment 
Suppliers Association (OESA), both supported by Eagle-Picher 
Industries, Breed Technologies (Breed), Dana Corporation (Dana), 
Pilkington North America, Inc. (PNA), the Transportation Safety 
Equipment Institute (TSEI), the Automotive Aftermarket Industry 
Association (AAIA), Johnson Controls, the Torrington Company, the 
Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA), the National 
Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC 
(Delphi), Webb Wheel Products, Inc. (Webb), Hella North America, 
Inc. (Hella), Osram Sylvania, Shepherd Hardware Products, LLC 
(Shepherd), Valeo, Inc., Am-Safe Commercial Products, Inc., and 
Harbour Industries. We also received comments from Consumer Union, 
Public Citizen, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(Advocates).
    These comments have provided us with numerous insights in 
developing this NPRM. We plan to issue a final rule by the statutory 
deadline, June 30, 2002, which will incorporate the early warning 
reporting elements specifically set forth in the TREAD Act. In 
addition to these elements, under Section 30166(m)(3)(B) we propose 
to require the submission of additional information that may assist 
in the identification of defects in vehicles in the United States. 
This will complete the first phase of our early warning rulemaking. 
Consistent with Section 30166(m)(5), we will periodically review the 
final rule; such review could result in amendments after June 30, 
2002.

III. Manufacturers That Would Be Covered by the New Reporting 
Requirements

A. Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles

    The TREAD Act provides for the agency to require manufacturers 
of motor vehicles \1\ to submit information that may assist in the 
identification of safety-related defects. We must decide which 
manufacturers of motor vehicles would be required to submit reports 
under this rule, and whether different reporting requirements should 
apply to various categories of manufacturers. Section 30166(m)(3) 
does not exempt any manufacturer of motor vehicles from its 
coverage. On the other hand, it provides substantial discretion to 
the agency. The word ``may'' is used at several points in the 
statute. In addition, the agency's ability to use the information 
submitted is a statutory concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``motor vehicle'' is a broad one. The statutory 
definition of ``motor vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)) has been the 
subject of numerous interpretations since 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the threshold questions in this rulemaking is whether the 
agency should exercise its discretion to defer the imposition of 
some or all potential early warning reporting requirements on some 
classes of manufacturers. The early warning regulation would be a 
new regulation, and inevitably the agency and regulated entities 
will face some issues in implementing it. It would be 
counterproductive to require the submission of more information than 
we could beneficially review or to impose impracticable 
requirements, particularly on small manufacturers. We have concluded 
that we should phase in the early warning reporting requirements and 
that, for the most part, it would be appropriate to focus first on 
larger volume manufacturers and on information regarding incidents 
and activities in the United States, as contrasted to those 
occurring in foreign countries.
    Vehicles produced in small quantities have a smaller overall 
impact upon safety than large production vehicles, as we have 
frequently noted in providing temporary exemptions from one of more 
of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards under 49 U.S.C. 30113. 
Although we would not expect the volume of reports from any 
individual small volume manufacturer to be overwhelming if we were 
to require comprehensive reporting by smaller manufacturers, there 
would be some burden on them. More important, our interactions with, 
and review of submissions by, the large number of small 
manufacturers would divert the agency's resources from reports 
submitted by high volume manufacturers involving potential safety 
defects that could affect a far greater number of vehicles and thus 
have a greater impact on safety.
    For the present time, we propose to exclude from most of the 
reporting requirements any vehicle manufacturer that manufactures 
for sale, offers for sale, imports, or sells, in the United States, 
fewer than 500 vehicles in the year of the reporting period, or 
which has done so in the two calendar years preceding the reporting 
period. We are also proposing to exclude registered importers (RIs) 
of vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards from most of the reporting requirements. 
RIs would not have information that would be useful because most are 
small, and those that are not import vehicles on which we would 
generally receive reports from assembling or importing 
manufacturers. This exclusion would also apply to many manufacturers 
of multistage vehicles and alterers since most manufacture or sell 
fewer than 500 vehicles annually. However, these smaller volume 
manufacturers would not be exempt from the requirements, addressed 
below, to report to us certain specified information regarding all 
deaths occurring in the United States that are identified in claims 
against the manufacturer or in notices to in which it is alleged or 
proven that a death was caused by a possible defect in the 
manufacturer's vehicle, together with information on deaths 
occurring in foreign countries that are identified in claims against 
the manufacturer involving a vehicle that is identical or 
substantially similar to a vehicle that the manufacturer has offered 
for sale in the United States. With respect to all such reported 
deaths, manufacturers would have to provide certain information 
regarding the underlying incident, as described in greater detail 
below. These manufacturers would also have to provide copies of 
documents related to customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer 
advisories, recalls, and other safety activities under proposed 
section 579.5.
    For those motor vehicle manufacturers that are not excluded from 
full reporting based on low levels of sales in the United States, we 
are proposing to establish separate reporting requirements based on 
the category of vehicle produced. We are proposing five categories 
of vehicles: Light vehicles, medium-heavy vehicles, buses, 
motorcycles and trailers. Each category has components and systems 
that distinguish it from the other four categories, and which may 
develop safety-related problems unique to that category. Therefore, 
we would require different information regarding each category of 
vehicle, which will help to reduce the complexity and burdensomeness 
of the rule.
    Under our proposal, light vehicles would comprise any motor 
vehicle, except a bus, trailer, or motorcycle, with a GVWR of 10,000 
lbs. or less. Medium-heavy vehicles would include trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. Buses 
(including school buses) and trailers would be separately 
categorized regardless of GVWR. Motorcycles would include any two- 
or three-wheeled vehicle meeting the definition of motorcycle in 49 
CFR 571.3(b).
    We ask for comments on whether an annual aggregate production, 
importation, or sales of 500 vehicles in the United States is an 
appropriate figure upon which to base this distinction, whether a 
manufacturer's eligibility for these lesser reporting requirements 
should be determined based upon its production in the two calendar 
years preceding this report or whether a shorter, longer, or 
different period would be appropriate, and whether small volume 
vehicle manufacturers should be required to provide other data and 
information in addition to that relating to deaths. Finally, we are 
interested in having comments on our proposed five categories of 
vehicles. For instance, we are not proposing a separate category of 
``medium vehicle'' because it seems to us that the components and 
systems of such vehicles would be those for which reporting would be 
required are those with which either light or medium-heavy vehicles 
are equipped.

[[Page 66193]]

B. Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle Equipment

    The TREAD Act also provides for the agency to require 
manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit early warning 
reporting information that may assist in the identification of 
safety-related defects. ``Motor vehicle equipment'' is defined in 49 
U.S.C. 30102(a)(7), and consists of ``original equipment'' (OE) and 
``replacement equipment.'' These two terms are currently defined in 
49 CFR 579.4. We are not changing the definitions, but we are 
revising the language in new section 579.4(c) to make it more 
understandable.

1. Original Equipment

    There are approximately 10,000 to 14,000 individual items of OE 
in a contemporary passenger car. Some are fabricated by the vehicle 
manufacturer, some by parts manufacturers, and some parts are 
incorporated into systems or modules assembled by various suppliers. 
There is a growing trend to packaging individual parts into a single 
unit, or module. For example, a steering wheel assembly may include 
an air bag, horn control, turn signal control, wiper control, 
ignition switch, cruise control, lighting controls, as well as 
associated wiring. Many of these units are assembled by a supplier, 
often with components from various manufacturers. Each of these 
fabricators or assemblers is also a manufacturer of motor vehicle 
equipment.
    When a component or module installed as OE on a vehicle fails, 
generally vehicle owners will complain or file a claim with the 
entity that has manufactured and warranted the vehicle, rather than 
the assembler of the module or the manufacturers of the individual 
parts, who in most instances are unknown to the vehicle owner. In 
view of this, the Alliance, Ford, and AIAM specifically supported 
exclusion of OE manufacturers (OEMs) from early warning reporting 
requirements in their comments on the ANPRM.
    OEMs, however, are not currently exempt from defect reporting 
requirements. Pursuant to 49 CFR 573.3(f), if an OEM sells an item 
of OE to more than one vehicle manufacturer and a defect or 
noncompliance is decided to exist in that OE, the OEM is required to 
notify us (as are the manufacturers of the vehicles in which the OE 
is installed). If the defective OE is used in the vehicles of only 
one vehicle manufacturer, the OEM may notify us on behalf of both 
itself and the vehicle manufacturer (Section 573.3(e))(in either 
case, the OEM may also be the party remedying the safety defect or 
the noncompliance). Thus, OEMs can and do make determinations that 
OE contains safety-related defects, and they will have some 
information of the type that the TREAD Act authorizes us to require, 
such as claims alleging failures of their products. Thus, we do not 
propose to totally exempt OEMs from early warning reporting.
    We have tentatively decided that most meaningful information 
about possible defects is more likely to come to the attention of 
the vehicle manufacturer earlier than it would to the OEM. However, 
we want to be certain that we obtain information regarding deaths 
attributed to defects in OE. Accordingly, at this time, we are 
proposing that OEMs be exempt from all reporting requirements 
regarding OE they manufacture, except for reporting to us regarding 
deaths in the same manner as small volume vehicle manufacturers, 
discussed above. Of course, the vehicle manufacturer would be 
required to report fully in its capacity as a vehicle manufacturer, 
even if the vehicle manufacturer believed that the problem was the 
responsibility of the OEM.

2. Replacement Equipment, Including Tires

    Replacement equipment comprises an even broader universe of 
parts than OE. Under both current 49 CFR 579.4(b) and proposed 
579.4(c), it includes all motor vehicle equipment other than OE. Not 
only does the term have the literal meaning of equipment that is 
intended to replace OE, it also includes accessory equipment and 
``off-vehicle equipment'' that is not part of a motor vehicle, such 
as retroreflective motorcycle rider apparel and child restraints. 
Manufacturers of replacement equipment are within the scope of the 
early warning reporting provisions of the statute.
    Some replacement equipment items are critically important from a 
safety perspective, while others have less of a safety nexus. Tires, 
of course, are essential items of motor vehicle equipment, and tire 
manufacturers have the duty to conduct notification and remedy 
campaigns and to address defective or noncompliant tires, whether 
sold in the aftermarket or installed on new vehicles (see current 49 
CFR 579.5(b)). Tire brand name owners (e.g., house brands) are also 
considered manufacturers (49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(E)) and have the 
same defect and noncompliance reporting requirements as the actual 
fabricators of the tires (49 CFR 573.3(d)). Child restraints are 
also critical safety items. Therefore, we are proposing that all 
tire manufacturers, tire brand name owners, and manufacturers of 
child restraints would be required to provide the full range of 
information and documents proposed. There are relatively few 
manufacturers of child restraints and tires, and most are large 
businesses.
    There is a large number of manufacturers of other types of 
replacement equipment. Much of this equipment is imported by or for 
auto parts houses such as J.C. Whitney, or general merchandisers 
such as K-Mart. An importer for resale is considered a manufacturer 
under the statute. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(B). A large universe of 
entities would be subject to multiple requirements if we were to 
fully apply early warning reporting requirements to all fabricators 
and importers of replacement equipment.
    Therefore, at least for purposes of this initial rulemaking, we 
are proposing that, as with lower volume vehicle manufacturers and 
original equipment manufacturers, manufacturers of other types of 
replacement equipment would only be required to report to us claims 
and notices regarding deaths allegedly due to defects in their 
products. However, we may revisit these limitations under our 
periodic review of the rule.

C. Foreign Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Equipment

    As defined before the enactment of the TREAD Act, a manufacturer 
is defined as ``a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles 
or motor vehicle equipment, or importing motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment for resale'' (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)). Foreign 
manufacturers offering vehicles or vehicle equipment for import must 
designate an agent on whom service may be made (49 U.S.C. 30164).
    In its defect and noncompliance reporting regulations, the 
agency has addressed the question of who may file a defect or 
noncompliance report related to an imported item. Under 49 CFR 
573.3(b), in the case of vehicles or equipment imported into the 
United States, a defect or noncompliance report may be filed by 
either the fabricating manufacturer or the importer of the vehicle 
or equipment. Defect and noncompliance reports covering vehicles 
manufactured outside of the United States have generally been 
submitted by the importer of the vehicles, which is usually a 
subsidiary of a foreign parent corporation (e.g., defects in 
vehicles made in Japan by Honda Motor Co. Ltd. are reported by 
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., even if the vehicle was certified by 
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.).
    The TREAD Act expanded manufacturers' responsibilities with 
respect to foreign events and activities. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(l) and 
(m). It is evident that the TREAD Act has extraterritorial effect. 
In its comments on the ANPRM, the Alliance recognized that the TREAD 
Act was clearly written by Congress to apply to persons and 
activities outside of the United States and it is therefore a clear 
assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the United States 
(Alliance comment, Attachment 10, p. 9). The Alliance went on to 
state that the early warning rule could reasonably require reports 
from foreign companies manufacturing vehicles for sale in the United 
States as long as the required reports relate to issues that could 
arise in those vehicles (p. 11). Today's proposal is consistent with 
that conclusion. Foreign entities would be required to provide the 
same information as we would require for domestic manufacturers, but 
as explained in further detail below, only with respect to vehicles 
and equipment that they sell in the United States, and to incidents 
involving death outside the United States that involve identical or 
substantially similar vehicles or equipment. To assure that we 
receive information initially provided to various foreign entities, 
including affiliates of foreign parent corporations, we propose to 
apply Part 579 to all vehicle and equipment manufacturers ``with 
respect to all vehicles and equipment that have been offered for 
sale, sold, or leased by the manufacturer, any parent corporation of 
the manufacturer, any subsidiary or affiliate of the manufacturer, 
or any subsidiary or affiliate of any parent corporation of the 
manufacturer.''
    This leaves the question of who must and who may report. In view 
of the definition of manufacturer and in further view of the 
specific provisions of Section 30166(m), we believe that the agency 
has authority to require a report from the foreign entity that

[[Page 66194]]

maintains the information, from the fabricating manufacturer, and 
from the importer of the vehicle or equipment. However, we are 
proposing to apply the reporting requirements for early warning in 
the same manner as we currently utilize for reporting noncompliance 
and defect determinations to NHTSA under Part 573, and that we have 
proposed for reporting of safety recalls and other safety campaigns 
in foreign countries pursuant to Section 3(a) of the TREAD Act, 49 
U.S.C. 30166(l). See 66 FR 51905 et seq., October 11, 2001. Thus, 
under today's proposal, the report must be filed by either the 
fabricating manufacturer or by the importer of the vehicle or 
equipment. This is consistent with current reporting of safety 
defects and noncompliances. See 49 CFR 573.3(b).
    A multinational corporation must ensure that all relevant 
information on matters for which reports are required throughout the 
world are made available to whatever entity makes those reports so 
that its designated entity timely provides the information to NHTSA. 
Thus, it would be a violation of law for a foreign fabricating 
manufacturer to designate its U.S. importer as its reporting entity, 
and then fail to assure that it is provided with the information 
that must be reported under this rule. Such manufacturers will have 
to adopt and implement practices to assure the proper flow of 
relevant information.

D. Other Representatives of Manufacturers

    Most of the information covered by this rule would be provided 
directly to the entity (usually a corporation) that assembles or 
imports vehicles or equipment. However, some information, such as 
claims-related documents or field reports, might be initially 
received by affiliates or other representatives of manufacturers, 
such as their registered agents and outside counsel. Consistent with 
the thrust of the early warning statutory provisions, we are 
proposing to deem information received by these entities to be in 
the possession of the manufacturer, and thus to require each 
manufacturer to ensure that entities that it has the ability to 
control furnish it with relevant early warning information so that 
the manufacturer may make a full and timely report to NHTSA. 
However, we are not proposing to require such an affiliate or 
representative to report directly to NHTSA. We also ask for comments 
on our proposed applicability of this regulation to parents, 
affiliates, and subsidiaries of vehicle manufacturers.
    In general, motor vehicle dealers are independent businesses 
(this is not the case with respect to some tire dealers). To the 
extent that they are independent, claims and other information 
received by dealers would not automatically be considered in the 
possession of the manufacturer. However, if the dealer were to 
convey such information to any employee or other representative of a 
manufacturer, the manufacturer would be deemed to have possession of 
it upon receipt.

IV. Information That Would Be Reported

    Section 30166(m)(3)(A) directs NHTSA to require manufacturers to 
report information which concerns data on ``claims submitted to the 
manufacturer for serious injuries (including death) and aggregate 
statistical data on property damage from alleged defects in a motor 
vehicle or in motor vehicle equipment,'' and on ``customer 
satisfaction campaigns, consumer advisories, recalls or other 
activity involving the repair or replacement of motor vehicles or 
items of motor vehicle equipment.'' Section 30166(m)(3)(B) 
authorizes us to require manufacturers to report other ``such 
information'' that may assist in the identification of safety 
defects. Finally, Section 30166(m)(3)(C) requires reporting of 
incidents, of which the manufacturer receives actual notice, 
involving deaths or serious injuries which are alleged or proven to 
have been caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer's vehicle 
or equipment in the United States, or in a foreign country when the 
possible defect is in a vehicle or equipment identical or 
substantially similar to that sold in the United States.

A. Production Information

    For each reporting period, we would require manufacturers of 
vehicles whose sales, production, or importation for sale in the 
United States is 500 or more, and manufacturers of child restraint 
systems and tires, to provide information on the volume of 
production of their products. Production numbers are needed because 
the agency's trend analyses frequently are normalized to the number 
of claims, complaints, etc. per unit of production. These 
manufacturers would submit the following information with respect to 
each model and model year of vehicle manufactured in the calendar 
year of the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the 
model year of the reporting period, including models no longer in 
production: the manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, 
the make, the model, the model year, the current model year 
production to the end of the reporting period, and the total model 
year production for all model years for which production has ceased. 
For all models of vehicles that are manufactured with more than one 
type of fuel system, the information required by this subsection 
would be reported separately for gasoline-powered vehicles and for 
non-gasoline-powered vehicles. For medium-heavy vehicles, there 
would be further subcategorization by service brake system (e.g., 
hydraulic, air).
    We recognize that manufacturers of child restraint systems and 
tires generally do not specify ``model years'' for their products. 
For purposes of this rule, to avoid confusion, we are defining the 
term ``model year'' as the year that the item of equipment was 
manufactured.
    Figure 1, below, represents a pro-forma example of how 
production information would be reported by a manufacturer of 
medium-heavy trucks, using an electronic spreadsheet. For each 
model/model year, there would be multiple rows if the medium-heavy 
truck model was produced with different types of fuel or brake 
systems.

Production Information

MEDIUM-HEAVY TRUCKS
Reporting Period:
Manufacturer:

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

[[Page 66195]]


                   .................  1994               #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel System Type:
    a. Gasoline
    b. Diesel
    c. Other
Brake System Type:
    a. Hydraulic
    b. Air
    c. Other than hydraulic or air
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1

    We ask for comments on this suggested format for providing 
production information by electronic means.

B. Claim: A Proposed Definition

    Section 30166(m)(3)(A) refers to claims data. The ANPRM stated 
that, in order to achieve the goals of the TREAD Act, the term 
``claim'' must be construed broadly and provided some examples.
    We have researched the definition of claim, considered comments 
received in response to the ANPRM, and considered our investigatory 
experience with requests for claims information.
    Case law provides interpretations of the word ``claim'' in 
various contexts. In a Federal law context, `` `claim' is something 
more than mere notice of an accident and an injury. The term `claim' 
contemplates, in general usage, a demand for payment or relief.'' 
Avril v. U.S., 461 F.2d 1090, 1091 (9th Cir. 1972). See also, 
Conoco, Inc. v. United States, 39 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1541 (N.D. 
La. 1994)(written request for compensation for damages or costs); 31 
U.S.C. 3729(c) (claim involves request for demand for money or 
property).
    State case law also provides a definition of the word ``claim.'' 
For example, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. The Superior Court of 
Los Angeles County, 65 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 1216 (1997), noted that a 
claim encompasses more than a suit:

``claim'' can be any number of things, none of which rise to the 
formal level of a suit--it may be a demand for payment communicated 
in a letter, or a document filed to protect an injured party's right 
to sue a governmental entity, or the document used to initiate a 
wide variety of administrative proceedings.

    Other state law cases have further addressed the meaning of 
``claim.'' Safeco Surplus Lines Co. v. Employer's Reinsurance Corp., 11 
Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1407 (1992), held that a ``claim'' is ``the 
assertion, demand or challenge of something as a right; the assertion 
of a liability to the party making it do some service or pay a sum of 
money.'' Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Construction Co., 136 Cal. App. 3d 
673, 677 (1982), stated that ``a claim both in its ordinary meaning and 
as interpreted by the courts, is a demand for something as a right, or 
as due and a formal lawsuit is not required before a claim is made.''
    Commenters provided a variety of views on a possible definition of 
a claim. The Alliance offered this definition to which Ford and Delphi 
agreed:

A claim or incident involving serious injury or death is any written 
demand, complaint, subrogation request or lawsuit received by a 
manufacturer from or on behalf of the person seriously or fatally 
injured that (a) involves ``serious injury,'' as further defined, or 
death, (b) alleges that a product defect was, at least in part, a 
contributing cause of the serious or fatal injury, and (c) contains 
sufficient information to identify the motor vehicle or item of 
motor vehicle equipment involved.

DaimlerChrysler would add that a ``claim'' includes a formal request 
for compensation. International Truck stated that the term should 
exclude warranty claims, which International considers to be dealer or 
customer submissions for reimbursement on parts and labor. TRW also 
pointed out the difference between claims for deaths and injuries and 
those submitted under warranties. TRW offered a definition for claims 
in the personal injury context as

a written demand for compensation against the manufacturer or 
written notice to the manufacturer of litigation where compensation 
is sought from the manufacturer and it is expressly alleged that 
death or serious personal injury has been caused by a defect in a 
specified vehicle and/or in specified motor vehicle equipment of the 
manufacturer.

    Mack Truck stated that claims should be defined as verified written 
communications transmitted to the manufacturer, requesting compensation 
for property damage, death or personal injury allegedly caused by 
safety-related defects in a specified product of the manufacturer. 
Volvo Trucks would restrict ``claim'' to ``any lawsuit filed requesting 
compensation for personal injuries or property damage that is the 
result of an alleged safety-related defect in a motor vehicle'' and did 
not include subrogation claims. It would also exclude ``any request for 
consequential damages that are the result of a warrantable repair or an 
alleged defect that does not relate to safety.''
    We have considered the case law and the comments. We believe that 
the definition of claim should be broad, and meet our needs under the 
TREAD Act. We propose the following definition for claim:

A written request or demand for relief, including money or other 
compensation, assumption of expenditures, or equitable relief, 
related to a motor vehicle crash, accident, the failure of a 
component or system of a vehicle or an item of motor vehicle 
equipment, or a fire. Claim includes but is not limited to a demand 
in the absence of a lawsuit, a complaint initiating a lawsuit, an 
assertion or notice of litigation, a settlement, covenant not to sue 
or release of liability in the absence of a written demand, and a 
subrogation request. A claim exists regardless of any denial or 
refusal to pay it, and regardless of whether it has been settled or 
resolved in the manufacturer's favor. The existence of a claim may 
not be conditioned on the receipt of anything beyond the document 
stating a claim.

    The proposed definition includes many of the elements addressed 
above by commenters. We do not address, as did the Alliance and others, 
what the claim must involve, allege or contain, as those matters are 
not parts of a definition of a claim. They are addressed below. 
However, we do refer to a motor vehicle crash, accident, component or 
system failure, and a fire, as these are the events that have safety 
implications. The definition would exclude, for example, events with 
which the rule is not concerned, such as injuries in manufacturers' 
factories. Warranties are addressed separately below. The last two 
sentences of our proposal are designed to assure that all relevant 
claims are provided to us. This would preclude attempts, similar to 
those that have been made by some manufacturers in our investigations, 
to evade reporting claims by conditioning them on receipt of parts, or 
their own assessments of the merits of claims.

[[Page 66196]]

C. Notice: A Proposed Definition

    Section 30166(m)(3)(C) requires that the rule include the reporting 
of ``all incidents of which the manufacturer receives actual notice,'' 
involving fatalities or serious injuries that are alleged or proven to 
have been caused by a possible defect in its products. The term 
``actual notice'' is extremely broad. Nonetheless, to avoid impractical 
requirements, we are proposing only to require reporting of incidents 
of which a manufacturer receives or obtains documentation (e.g., in 
written or electronic formats). Therefore, in this context, we would 
define ``notice'' of an applicable incident to mean ``a document 
received by or prepared by a manufacturer that does not include a 
demand for relief.'' This would include, for example, a letter advising 
a manufacturer of a crash in which there was a death or injury and an 
allegation of a defect in the vehicle where there was no claim for 
monetary or other relief. It would also include police accident reports 
transmitted to a manufacturer regarding deaths or injuries in which a 
causative factor was stated to be a performance failure of the vehicle 
or equipment, but would not include reports where no defect in, or 
failure of, the vehicle or equipment was indicated (e.g., a crash due 
to the driver losing control, with no system or equipment failure 
reported). Newspaper articles or other media reports would not, in 
themselves, constitute ``notice,'' unless either they were provided to 
the manufacturer, such as by an owner, or actions taken by the 
manufacturer reflect that it had received notice of the incidents in 
question.

D. Identification of the Product in Claims and Notices

    To be covered by these early warning requirements, a claim or 
notice, as well as other matters addressed below, would have to 
identify the vehicle or equipment item involved in at least a minimal 
way. Otherwise, it would not be possible to identify what vehicle or 
equipment was involved, and the information would not help us to 
identify potential defects. In the context of identification, we 
propose to use the term ``minimal specificity'' and define it to mean 
``(a) for a vehicle, the make, model and model year, (b) for a child 
seat, the model (either the model name or model number), (c) for a 
tire, the model and size, and (d) for other motor vehicle equipment, if 
there is a model or family of models, the model name or model number.''
    With regard to claims, notices, and other reporting obligations 
discussed below, for vehicles, we would define ``model'' to mean ``a 
name that a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles within a make 
which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, 
chassis or cab type.'' ``Make,'' in turn, would mean ``a name that a 
manufacturer applies to a group of vehicles.'' The proposed definition 
of ``make'' is the identical definition of ``make'' used in 49 CFR Part 
565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements (see section 565.3(g)). 
The proposed definition of ``model'' is the definition the VIN 
regulation uses for ``[vehicle] line'' (see section 565.3(f)). Our 
objective is to obtain reports by commonly-understood designations. For 
example, with regard to the General Motors S-10 platform, we would 
expect to receive separate reports for pickup trucks and sport-utility 
vehicles, but the total for each would include both Chevrolet and GMC 
nameplates. But we would expect C and K platform pickup trucks to be 
reported together (the total including both Chevrolet and GMC 
nameplates) as they are both pickup trucks and the relevant difference 
(2- vs. 4-wheel drive) appears to be insignificant for early warning 
reporting. As another example, with regard to Ford pickup trucks, we 
expect separate reports for the F-150 and F-250, but, within each 
designation, do not want separate reports for two-door and four-door 
versions, or versions with different engines or transmissions. We 
request comments on this approach and how our definition may achieve 
it.
    We would define ``model year'' for this and all other early warning 
reporting purposes to include the year that a vehicle was manufactured 
if the manufacturer has not assigned a model year to the vehicle 
covered by the report.
    For equipment, ``model'' would mean the name that its manufacturer 
uses to designate it. ``Model year'' would mean the calendar year in 
which the equipment was manufactured.
    We ask for comments on the clarity and inclusiveness of these 
proposed definitions.
    If an otherwise covered claim or notice as initially received by 
the manufacturer does not identify the allegedly defective product with 
minimal specificity but a subsequent communication does, it would 
become a covered claim or notice at the time of the subsequent 
communication, and the manufacturer would be required to report it in 
its next report to NHTSA.

E. Claims and Notices Involving Death

1. Whether to Define Death
    We are not proposing to define death or fatality because we do not 
believe that it is necessary or appropriate to do so. Our reason is 
simple: the subject matter of this category of information is claims 
involving deaths and notices of incidents involving fatalities. Proof 
of death is not necessary, nor does it matter when death occurred.
2. Claims Involving Death
    We propose that every manufacturer be required to report certain 
information about each incident involving a death identified in claims 
it has received during each reporting period, if the claim identifies 
the product with minimal specificity. This would apply to claims 
regarding fatal incidents in foreign countries as well as the United 
States. Reports of claims involving death would be in electronic form, 
as we discuss later.
3. Notices Involving Death
    We are also proposing that manufacturers be required to report 
similar information about each incident involving a death that occurred 
in the United States that is identified in a notice (as defined above) 
in which it is alleged or proven that the fatality was caused in whole 
or in part by a possible defect in such manufacturer's vehicle or 
equipment, received during each reporting period, if the product is 
identified with minimal specificity. Information about such deaths 
would be combined with information about claims of death on the same 
report.
4. Information About Deaths
    The information about deaths to be reported would contain, for each 
incident, model and model year of the vehicle or equipment, the date of 
the incident, the number of deaths that occurred in the incident, the 
name of the State in the United States or the specific foreign country 
in which the incident occurred, and the identification of each 
component or system that allegedly contributed to the incident or the 
death reported.
    We are proposing that manufacturers who sell 500 or more vehicles 
annually in the United States and manufacturers of tires (except as to 
low production tires) and child restraint systems identify systems or 
components involved in the same manner as those used for their other 
reporting obligations. These are discussed below. Vehicle manufacturers 
who sell fewer than 500 vehicles annually in the United States would 
also identify

[[Page 66197]]

systems or components involved in the same manner. However, given the 
large and varying universe of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of 
original equipment and of replacement equipment other than tires and 
child restraint systems would describe the systems or components 
involved in their own words, based on the claim or notice. We are 
proposing this approach to make reporting by these manufacturers 
simpler than it would otherwise be if they had to use designations with 
which they are not familiar.
    For claims and notices, if the component or system is not 
identified, the manufacturer would enter ``unknown.'' If the 
manufacturer was not aware of one or more of the required items of 
information at the time the report was submitted, it would have to 
provide the information in a further report covering the reporting 
period in which it was received.

F. Claims and Notices Involving Injuries

1. The Difficulties of Defining ``Serious Injury''
    The issue of whether to define ``serious injury,'' and if so, how, 
has proven to be one of the more challenging tasks in the development 
of this NPRM.
    We have considered several approaches. Originally, it seemed to us 
that it might be appropriate to use the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 
system. The AIS system was developed by a joint Committee on Injury 
Scaling, comprised of representatives from the American Medical 
Association, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 
and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The AIS system ranks the 
severity of injuries numerically from 1 to 7. The injuries that are 
recorded are those that occur to the head, face, neck, thorax, abdomen, 
spine, upper and lower extremities, external/skin, burns and other 
trauma. In the ANPRM, the agency sought input on the potential use of 
the AIS system. The commenters had many disparate views.
    In its comments, the Alliance labeled the AIS system unworkable for 
this purpose due to the highly sophisticated coding and complex nature 
of identifying claims. The Alliance noted that each manufacturer would 
need to have a staff of thoroughly trained personnel who understand the 
entire system. The manufacturer would have to train its responsible 
personnel to understand basic medicine and medical terms and to use the 
AIS coding system, which is not a simple task. There is a lengthy 
manual, and the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine 
offers a two-day course for injury scaling according to the AIS. The 
course is designed for trauma nurses, registrars, physicians, hospital 
records personnel, and researchers who are responsible for injury 
databases. A general knowledge of anatomy is required before taking the 
class.
    Another issue with using the AIS system is the amount of 
information required to determine the actual injury level. A 
manufacturer may never have enough information to properly code an 
injury according to the AIS system. Many claims and notices received by 
a manufacturer will allege an injury but contain insufficient 
information for AIS coding. In the absence of information demonstrating 
that the injury in question reached whatever threshold AIS level might 
be selected, a manufacturer would be justified in not reporting the 
incident, which could result in substantial under-reporting.
    In addition, the AIS system necessarily involves subjective 
judgments. This could introduce error and inconsistency. Moreover, the 
manufacturers have stated that they are reluctant to interpret medical 
records.
    Another concern is universal administration. The AIS system is 
prevalent in some professional circles in the United States, but many 
manufacturers indicated that the AIS system is not utilized outside the 
U.S. This may cause confusion when translating or reviewing foreign 
claims, especially if there is a different reporting system for 
injuries in foreign countries. Similarly, while most major vehicle 
manufacturers probably have employees who are familiar with it, the AIS 
system may not be utilized by many smaller manufacturers. Many smaller 
manufacturers commented that they were unaware of the AIS or believed 
that using it as a determinant of serious injury would be unworkable. 
We do not believe that it would be appropriate to specify different 
reporting criteria for different industry segments.
    Nissan diverged from most manufacturers and supported a system 
similar to the AIS system for defining serious injuries, but sought a 
simplified, flexible system. Nissan suggested that the government and 
the industry create a joint task force to develop a table based upon 
the AIS system that would allow the ranking of injuries to define 
serious injury. Similar to Nissan, AIAM suggested that the AIS system 
needed to be simplified to allow manufacturers to easily classify an 
injury as serious or not serious. We do not know whether this approach 
would be workable. However, even if it were, there is insufficient time 
to develop such a system within the statutory deadline for the early 
warning rule.
    CU and Advocates both supported the use of the AIS system as a 
triggering device. However, both commenters stated that if a claim 
alleges an injury and it cannot be determined if it involves a serious 
injury, the claim should be reported to the agency.
    We also considered basing the definition of serious injury for 
purposes of the early warning rule on certain statutory and regulatory 
definitions. RMA suggested the definition from 18 U.S.C. 1365(g)(3). In 
that section, serious injury is defined as: ``a bodily injury which 
involves (a) a substantial risk of death; (b) extreme physical pain; 
(c) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or (d) protracted loss or 
impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental 
faculty.'' The MIC suggested that we define serious injury similarly to 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) definition of 
``grievous bodily injury'' (16 CFR 1116.2 (b)). That section states, in 
pertinent part:

(b) Grievous bodily injury includes, but is not limited to, any of 
the following categories of injury:
(1) Mutilation or disfigurement. Disfigurement includes permanent 
facial disfigurement or non-facial scarring that results in 
permanent restriction of motion;
(2) Dismemberment or amputation, including the removal of a limb or 
other appendage of the body;
(3) The loss of important bodily functions or debilitating internal 
disorder. These terms include:
(i) Permanent injury to a vital organ, in any degree;
(ii) The total loss or loss of use of any internal organ,
(iii) Injury, temporary or permanent, to more than one internal 
organ;
(iv) Permanent brain injury to any degree or with any residual 
disorder (e.g. epilepsy), and brain or brain stem injury including 
coma and spinal cord injuries;
(v) Paraplegia, quadriplegia, or permanent paralysis or paresis, to 
any degree;
(vi) Blindness or permanent loss, to any degree, of vision, hearing, 
or sense of smell, touch, or taste;
(vii) Any back or neck injury requiring surgery, or any injury 
requiring joint replacement or any form of prosthesis, or; (viii) 
Compound fracture of any long bone, or multiple fractures that 
result in permanent or significant temporary loss of the function of 
an important part of the body;
(4) Injuries likely to require extended hospitalization, including 
any injury requiring 30 or more consecutive days of in-patient care 
in an acute care facility, or 60 or more consecutive days of in-
patient care in a rehabilitation facility;
(5) Severe burns, including any third degree burn over ten percent 
of the body or more,

[[Page 66198]]

or any second degree burn over thirty percent of the body or more;
(6) Severe electric shock, including ventricular fibrillation, 
neurological damage, or thermal damage to internal tissue caused by 
electric shock.
(7) Other grievous injuries, including any allegation of 
traumatically induced disease.

    In the context of early warning reporting, these definitions suffer 
from many of the same deficiencies as identified above regarding the 
AIS system. Reporting would ultimately depend on highly subjective 
determinations, including the assessment of terms like ``substantial,'' 
``extreme,'' and ``protracted.'' This could lead to inconsistencies, 
under-reporting, and unwarranted delays. In addition, many categories, 
such as ``substantial risk of death'' and ``extreme physical pain,'' 
would need to be further defined.
    We also considered using a surrogate for serious injury, such as 
hospitalization. The Alliance, which, as noted above, opposed technical 
assessments of injuries under the AIS system, took this approach. The 
Alliance would define serious injury as any non-fatal injury resulting 
in an overnight hospital admission (but not including emergency room 
treatment if the person was treated and released). The Alliance asserts 
that it is simple and is easier to administer than the AIS system. This 
is true; the Alliance's definition is simple and does not require 
sophisticated training of reporting personnel. Also, the definition 
provides an objective criterion. The reporting trigger, the 
hospitalization, would not need to be interpreted by the manufacturer 
to determine if it meets another standard.
    On the other hand, the Alliance's definition is not broad enough. 
The definition only includes injuries that result in an overnight 
admission into a hospital, but excludes significant emergency room 
treatment. For the purposes of early warning, in our view, this is not 
sufficient. Due to various factors, such as health care management 
practices and evolving medical approaches, individuals with injuries 
that most people would view as serious are often treated in an 
emergency room but not actually admitted to a hospital. For example, 
under the Alliance's definition, a person who fractured a leg might not 
be considered to have incurred a serious injury, since he or she might 
not be admitted into the hospital for an overnight stay. Yet we believe 
that most people would agree that a fractured leg would be considered a 
serious injury. In addition, for various reasons, some seriously 
injured people, such as the poor and people in various religious 
groups, might not be admitted into a ``hospital.'' Most important, it 
is likely that most claims, and possibly even lawsuits, will not 
specifically state whether or not there was a hospital stay. Thus, many 
serious injuries that involved hospitalization would not be reported 
under this definition.
    A difficulty that would exist under any definition of serious 
injury is the effort that would be needed to monitor the progress of 
claims to see if a claim that initially did not allege an injury that 
satisfied the definition was amended or supplemented such that the 
injury was serious. The Alliance asserted that constant monitoring of 
claims is not feasible and would not further the goals of the early 
warning provisions. The Alliance further commented that the burden 
should not be on the manufacturer to determine if a claim involves a 
serious injury. We disagree with the Alliance's assertion that follow 
up review under such a scenario would not further the goals of early 
warning. Nonetheless, we recognize that such efforts would impose 
significant additional burdens on manufacturers.
2. Reporting of Incidents in Which Persons Were Injured, Based on 
Claims and Notices
    In view of the substantial problems associated with defining 
``serious injury,'' for purposes of early warning reporting we are 
proposing to require certain categories of manufacturers to report each 
incident in which persons are injured in the United States that is 
identified in a claim or notice alleging or proving that the injury was 
caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer's product, if the claim 
or notice identifies the product with minimal specificity. For these 
manufacturers, the report would be combined with the reporting of 
incidents involving fatalities. This would limit the number of reports 
and avoid duplication that could be associated with separate reports of 
deaths and injuries stemming from the same incident.
    We recognize that Sections 30166(m)(3)(A) and (C) refer to 
``serious injuries.'' Nevertheless, we are authorized to require 
reporting of claims about, and notices of, all injuries by Section 
30166(m)(3)(B) which provides:

Other Data. As part of the final rule * * *, the Secretary may, to 
the extent that such information may assist in the identification of 
defects related to motor vehicle safety in motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment in the United States, require manufacturers * * * 
to report, periodically or upon request of the Secretary, such 
information as the Secretary may request.

    It is evident that information about injuries caused by defects in 
vehicles and equipment will ``assist in the identification of defects 
related to safety.'' Often, the gravity of an injury does not help 
determine whether a vehicle or equipment is defective, since the fact 
that a possible defect led to a crash is generally more relevant than 
the degree of injury experienced by a vehicle occupant in the crash. 
Thus, limiting reporting to serious injuries would not better lead to 
the discovery of defect trends. By requiring all claims and notices of 
injury to be reported, we would increase the robustness of the data 
base on which we could analyze whether a possible defect trend existed. 
Thus, such a requirement is authorized by Section 30166(m)(3)(B), and 
satisfies the agency's obligations under Sections 30166(m)(3)(A) and 
(C).
    This proposed requirement avoids the operational difficulties 
described above associated with any attempt to develop a universal, 
objective definition of ``serious'' injuries. The decision about 
whether an incident involving an injury must be reported could be made 
on the basis of the limited information that would be expected in a 
claim or a notice of a covered incident, without requiring complicated 
coding efforts, or awaiting detailed information about the specifics of 
the injury or the extent of hospitalization. Thus, it would reduce 
delays that could turn ``early warning'' into ``late warning.''
    There are other benefits to this approach. Because manufacturers 
would not have to determine if the alleged injury met one or more 
potentially complex criteria for seriousness of an injury as provided 
under some proposals, this approach would eliminate the need for 
subjective determinations, and thus address the concern of 
manufacturers that their decisions could be second-guessed.
    Although the incidents that would be reported in which persons were 
injured would be greater than under a more limited definition of 
``serious injury,'' this approach would actually reduce the burden on 
manufacturers. They would not need specialized or highly trained staffs 
to make decisions about ``seriousness.'' As importantly, the need to 
monitor and repeatedly review incoming information to reassess whether 
an injury was ``serious'' would be minimized, if not eliminated. Also, 
most manufacturers would not have to significantly restructure their 
existing database systems to comply with this reporting requirement, 
since most, if not all, manufacturers keep a record of claims.

[[Page 66199]]

    We have considered the consequence upon NHTSA of receiving, 
organizing, and analyzing this information. The Alliance has raised the 
specter that agency would be flooded with a tremendous amount of data, 
even if it was submitted in electronic form, stating that there are 
over 3.2 million injuries per year as a result of 6.3 million police-
reported crashes. The Alliance has overstated the burden on NHTSA. The 
vast majority of those crashes and injuries do not result in claims 
against manufacturers, and do not involve alleged defects. In fact, the 
Alliance's supplemental comments noted that only 9,200 claims alleging 
death or injury were filed against their manufacturer members and two 
other manufacturers in the United States in 2000. Also, NHTSA would not 
be overwhelmed because, as discussed below, only a limited amount of 
information involving injury-producing incidents would be reported, as 
opposed to copies of the underlying claims or notices themselves.
    We would require those manufacturers that must report information 
about injuries to provide the same information as required with respect 
to incidents involving deaths. If an incident involved both deaths and 
injuries, it would only be reported once, with both the number of 
deaths and the number of injuries specified.

G. Other Possible Conditions on Reporting of Deaths and Injuries

    Some commenters suggested that, to be covered under the reporting 
provisions, a claim or notice must also specifically allege that the 
fatality or injury was caused by a possible defect. The allegation of a 
defect is not statutorily required under Section 30166(m)(3)(A) or (B). 
Moreover, such a limitation would lead to under-reporting. In a 
lawsuit, which is one type of a claim, a defect need not be alleged if 
the pleading requirements of the relevant jurisdiction do not require 
such an averment. For example, in some states such as California, the 
claim/pleading requirements for complaints do not require the plaintiff 
to allege the existence of a defect. Moreover, with respect to claims, 
the assertion of a defect is implicit, since ordinarily there would 
otherwise be no reason to make the claim. Therefore, we are proposing 
that, for early warning reporting purposes, a claim need not 
specifically allege or describe a defect. It is enough if the claim 
contains information indicating that a death or injury has allegedly 
occurred, and it is alleged or proven that the manufacturer's product 
is responsible.
    Different considerations apply to those incidents of which the 
manufacturer receives notice that does not amount to a claim, since 
only incidents in which a defect is alleged or proven are to be 
reported under Section 30166(m)(3)(C). Thus, for such incidents, we 
would require an allegation of a defect. Otherwise, the manufacturer 
would be required to report incidents that came to its attention when 
no one believes that the manufacturer's product contributed to the 
death or injury; e.g., a fatal crash due to high speed or drunk 
driving. However, the specific component or system that allegedly led 
to the incident would not have to be identified in the claim or notice.
    Some manufacturers suggested that the allegation that a vehicle 
component is involved would have to be confirmed before an incident 
would have to be reported. We reject this suggestion, since the 
litigation process is lengthy, and it may be months or years before the 
involvement of a component is confirmed, if at all. The vast majority 
of cases settle without findings and of those that do not, many may not 
identify the defective component in jury resolutions. Also, the earlier 
that information arrives at the agency, the earlier our investigators 
will have information to determine whether an investigation needs to be 
opened.
    Some manufacturers also suggested that the reportable incidents be 
limited to failures of or problems with certain vehicle systems. As 
discussed below, we believe that this approach is appropriate for 
certain types of information. However, while deaths and injuries due to 
alleged defects are relatively rare, they are so significant that we 
want our information to be as complete as possible. Therefore, we 
propose to require reporting of all deaths and injuries in the United 
States based on claims and notices, regardless of the implicated 
components.
    Section 30166(m)(3)(A) refers to claims ``derived from foreign and 
domestic sources.'' In the same vein, Section 30166(m)(3)(C) refers to 
the reporting of certain incidents of which the manufacturer receives 
actual notice that occur in a foreign country, when the vehicle or 
equipment is identical or substantially similar to products offered for 
sale in the United States. In an effort to minimize the burdens 
associated with gathering information about incidents in foreign 
countries, in this phase of rulemaking we are proposing to require only 
reporting of such claims involving fatalities occurring in a foreign 
country but not to require reports about incidents in foreign countries 
that resulted in non-fatal injuries. Relatively few claims are filed 
outside the United States, and, in light of the anticipated robustness 
of the domestic data, we do not believe that our early warning 
capabilities would be adversely affected. We recognize that this 
proposal would require manufacturers and their affiliates to review 
foreign information bases, but believe the seriousness of fatalities 
associated with potential defects warrants this requirement.

H. Identical or Substantially Similar Motor Vehicles or Equipment.

    Under Section 30166(m)(3)(C), manufacturers of vehicles or 
equipment must report:

 * * * incidents of which the manufacturer receives actual notice 
which involve fatalities or serious injuries which are alleged or 
proven to have been caused by a possible defect in such 
manufacturer's motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment * * * in a 
foreign country when the possible defect is in a motor vehicle or 
motor vehicle equipment that is identical or substantially similar 
to a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment offered for sale in 
the United States. (emphasis added)

    In response to the ANPRM, we received comments on the meaning and 
scope of this phrase. These comments helped us in preparing the NPRM 
(``Foreign Defect NPRM'') published on October 11, 2001 which would 
implement Section 30166(l), Reporting of defects in motor vehicles and 
products in foreign countries (66 FR 51907), which contains the 
underlined phrase.
1. The Meaning of ``Identical''
    The ANPRM asked:
    ``1. Is the word `identical' understood internationally, or do we 
need to define it? If so, how?''
    We discussed this issue extensively in the Foreign Defect NPRM (see 
66 FR 51907 at 10-11) and incorporate that discussion by reference. We 
concluded that a definition of ``identical'' was not needed. The same 
applies to this notice.
2. Substantially Similar Motor Vehicles
    The Foreign Defect NPRM discussed extensively the comments received 
in response to the ANPRM on the meaning of ``substantially similar 
motor vehicles'' (see 66 FR 51907 at 11-13), and that discussion is 
also incorporated by reference. On the basis of these comments, we 
proposed that motor vehicles would be substantially similar to each 
other for foreign defect reporting if one or more of five criteria was 
met, at proposed 49 CFR 579.12:

    (a) A motor vehicle sold or in use outside the United States is 
identical or substantially

[[Page 66200]]

similar to a motor vehicle sold or offered for sale in the United 
States if:
    (1) Such a vehicle has been sold in Canada or has been certified 
as complying with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
    (2) Such a vehicle is listed in Appendix A to part 593 of this 
chapter or determined to be eligible for importation into the United 
States in any agency decision issued between amendments to Appendix 
A to part 593;
    (3) Such a vehicle is manufactured in the United States for sale 
in a foreign country;
    (4) Such a vehicle is a counterpart of a vehicle sold or offered 
for sale in the United States or
    (5) Such a vehicle and a vehicle sold or offered for sale in the 
United States both contain the component or system that gave rise or 
contributed to a safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign 
country, without regard to the vehicle platform on which the 
components or systems is installed and regardless of whether the 
part numbers are identical.

    We believe that the first four proposed criteria are equally 
appropriate for the purposes of early warning reporting, and are 
proposing them in this notice. With respect to the fourth criterion, or 
alternative test, the preamble of the Foreign Defect NPRM did not 
directly explain what we meant by a ``counterpart'' vehicle. However, 
by example, a discussion appearing on page 51912 provides an 
explanation of what, in our view, would be counterpart vehicles: ``An 
example would be Ford Explorers assembled outside the United States, 
such as those assembled in Venezuela.'' We added that ``We would 
appreciate comments on whether this latter class of vehicles needs to 
be defined with greater specificity,'' warning that that ``in our view 
the term substantially similar sweeps with a broad brush and is not to 
be defeated by persons bent on finding or inventing distinctions to 
evade reporting.'' We have now decided to propose a definition of 
``counterpart vehicle'' for early warning which we believe should also 
apply for foreign defect reporting. A ``counterpart vehicle'' would be 
``a vehicle made in a foreign country that is equivalent to one made in 
the United States except that it may have a different name, labeling, 
driver side restraints, lighting or wheels/tires, or metric system 
measurements.'' This would apply to both foreign defect reporting and 
early warning reporting.
    The fifth alternative test, while appropriate for foreign defect 
reporting, is not relevant for purposes of early warning. Under the 
Foreign Defect NPRM, vehicles would be substantially similar if ``both 
contain the component or system that gave rise or contributed to a 
safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country, without 
regard to the vehicle platform on which the component or systems is 
installed and regardless of whether the part numbers are identical.'' 
Under Section 30166(l), a potential safety defect has already been 
identified in a specific component or system of a motor vehicle, 
usually by the manufacturer. In that context, the relative precision of 
a component-or system-based determination is workable. However, under 
Section 30166(m), a defect has not yet been identified by the 
manufacturer, and often a component-or system-based analysis will not 
be possible based on the information contained in a claim received by 
the manufacturer. Accordingly, we believe that a less precise focus is 
warranted. More particularly, we believe that platform-based reporting 
is consistent with the breadth of early warning reporting, yet specific 
enough to provide focus. We would consider foreign and U.S. vehicles as 
substantially similar if they use the same vehicle platform. An example 
would be the Cadillac Catera which uses the same vehicle platform as 
the Opel Omega, or the Jaguar S-Class, which shares a platform with the 
Lincoln LS. We specifically request comment on our view that foreign 
and U.S. vehicles would be substantially similar for reporting under 
Section 30166(m) if they shared a platform. We have not proposed a 
definition for ``platform.'' If a commenter believes that a definition 
of this term is necessary, we invite the commenter to suggest a 
definition that the commenter believes is appropriate.
3. Substantially Similar Motor Vehicle Equipment and Tires
    Both Sections 30166(l) and (m) require reports pertaining to 
substantially similar motor vehicle equipment and tires, and the 
preamble to the Foreign Defect NPRM contains a pertinent discussion of 
this issue (see p. 51913-14).
    For purposes of foreign defect reporting, we proposed to deem 
foreign and U.S. motor vehicle equipment as identical or substantially 
similar ``if such equipment and the equipment sold or offered for sale 
in the United States are the same component or system, or both contain 
the component or system that gave rise or contributed to a safety 
recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country, regardless of 
whether the part numbers are identical.'' The reference to a safety 
recall is inapposite for purposes of early warning, but we believe that 
the remainder of the proposed definition is valid. Accordingly, we are 
proposing that an item of motor vehicle equipment sold or in use 
outside the United States would be identical or substantially similar 
to equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States ``if such 
equipment and the equipment sold or offered for sale in the United 
States have one or more components or systems that are the same, 
regardless of whether the part numbers are identical.'' We believe that 
the breadth provided by this definition is necessary given the nature 
of claims, which often do not identify particular problematic 
components. In this light, we would regard foreign child restraint 
systems as substantially similar (if not identical) to U.S. 
counterparts if they incorporate one or more parts that are used in 
models of child restraints offered for sale in the U.S., regardless of 
whether the restraints are designed for children of different sizes 
than those sold in the U.S. and regardless of whether they share the 
same model number or name. For example, if buckles, tether hooks, 
anchorages, or straps are common throughout a manufacturer's range of 
models, the child restraints would be substantially similar even though 
the buckles, hooks, anchorages, or straps might be used on a variety of 
add-on, backless, belt positioning, rear-facing or booster seats 
produced by the manufacturer.
    In light of the foregoing discussion, we request comments on the 
appropriate formulation of test(s) for determining whether foreign 
motor vehicle equipment is substantially similar to U.S. equipment.
    Finally, the Foreign Defect NPRM contained a relevant discussion on 
identical or substantially similar tires (see p. 51914). We proposed 
that tires would be identical or substantially similar ``if they have 
the same model name and size designation, or if they are identical 
except for the model name.'' The wording of today's proposal differs 
slightly; tires would be identical or substantially similar if they 
have ``the same model and size designation, or if [they are] identical 
in design except for the model name.'' We see no real substantive 
difference in the two proposals and will adopt a common interpretation 
of this phrase that will be identical in both final rules.

I. Claims and Notices Involving Property Damage

    Section 30166(m)(3)(A)(i) provides for reporting of ``aggregate 
statistical data on property damage'' from alleged defects in the 
manufacturer's products.
1. Definition of ``Property Damage,'' and Whether to Define ``Aggregate 
Statistical Data''
    In response to the ANPRM, manufacturers proposed definitions of

[[Page 66201]]

property damage to be reported. Nissan would limit it

to those claims received from vehicle owners, owner representatives, 
or insurance companies, which involve a crash, tire failure or fire 
where there is an allegation of defect which may have caused the 
crash, tire failure or fire. Specifically excluded would be 
communications requesting restitution for mechanical breakdown or 
improper operation such as the example of the engine that fails due 
to lack of maintenance.

    AIAM would ``include only claims received by the manufacturer in 
writing * * * limited to incidents in which a defect is alleged in one 
of the critical safety systems (brakes, steering, occupant restraint, 
fuel).'' AIAM also suggested that a ``dollar value threshold should be 
set (perhaps $2500)'' to reduce the reporting of minor claims.
    In our view, this portion of Section 30166(m)(3)(A)(i) is not 
limited to ``claims'' for property damage. Subparagraph (i) refers to 
``data on claims * * * for serious injuries (including death) and 
aggregate statistical data on property damage.'' The words ``claims 
for'' do not pertain to property damage. Nevertheless, we recognize in 
most cases that manufacturers will only be aware of property damage 
that may be related to potential defects if they receive a claim 
seeking payment for the damage. Accordingly, with respect to property 
damage, we are proposing to require only reporting of claims 
information and not incidents of which a manufacturer receives actual 
notice.
    We believe that the term ``property damage'' needs to be defined, 
and the comments have been helpful in formulating a proposed 
definition. We would include damage to the vehicle or other tangible 
property, but exclude equipment failure and matters solely involving 
warranty repairs. For example, if the brakes failed and there were no 
physical consequences other than the need to repair the brake system, 
there would be no property damage. If there was a brake failure and the 
vehicle hit an object, there could be property damage to the vehicle or 
object. Accordingly, for purposes of this rule, we propose that 
property damage means ``physical injury to tangible property.'' A 
property damage claim would mean:

A claim for property damage, excluding that part of a claim, if any, 
pertaining solely to damage to a component or system of a vehicle or 
an item of equipment itself based on the alleged failure or 
malfunction of the component, system, or item, and further excluding 
matters addressed under warranty.

    We also asked for comments on how to define ``aggregate statistical 
data on property damage.'' We learned that there is no generally 
understood meaning of the term. For example, Fontaine believes 
``aggregate statistical data'' means ``the compilation of quantitative 
data without specific information on individual events.'' For Delphi, 
``aggregate statistical data'' means ``summaries of property damage 
information organized by category (e.g. model year, product type, 
damage type) and tabulated as to total cost or number of incidents.''
    AIAM would define aggregate statistical data ``to exclude 
allegations of simple failure or breakage of a component'' and limit it 
``to the number of incidents involving a collision, tire failure or 
fire and occurring in the U.S.'' DaimlerChrysler would restrict 
``aggregate statistical data'' to warranty information.
    The Alliance stated that non-injury claims data should be 
normalized on the basis of total production or total sales. Trailer 
manufacturers, according to TTMA, ``propose to report statistical data 
related to warranty claims, claims and lawsuits involving property 
damage resulting from an alleged safety-related defect involving the 
following components or systems: tires, axles/suspension/brake 
components, rear impact guards, lighting and related components, king 
pins and fifth-wheel couplers, pintle hooks and drawbar eyes.''
    The property damage information that we are proposing to require 
manufacturers to submit is limited to the number of claims involving a 
limited number of systems, components, and fires (to be discussed 
later). Thus, the information to be submitted will be ``aggregate 
statistical data.'' Therefore, we do not see a need for a separate 
regulatory definition of this term.
2. Reports Involving Property Damage
    Unlike reporting of claims and notices of incidents involving 
deaths and injuries, we would only require reporting of property damage 
claims when one or more specified vehicle components or systems has 
been identified as causing or contributing to the incident or damage. 
These components and systems were selected based upon their connection 
to safety recalls in the past, as described in Section IV below. They 
vary depending on the type of vehicle or equipment that is the subject 
of the report.
    If the incident that allegedly led to the property damage also 
resulted in a death or injury, the manufacturer would only report the 
incident as one involving a death or injury, and it would not be 
required to report the incident under the property damage requirement. 
Otherwise, there could be a misleading ``double count.''
    Reports of property damage claims would be submitted in the same 
manner as the number of consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field 
reports, discussed later. The information would be reported separately 
for each model and model year and would be submitted in electronic 
form, as discussed in Section VII below. The manufacturer would not be 
required to submit documents reflecting the extent of the property 
damage or the details of the incident that allegedly led to the damage.
    With respect to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, we are 
proposing to require only manufacturers of tires to report property 
damage information. We note that it is extremely unlikely that a child 
restraint would cause significant property damage.
    We also propose that a vehicle manufacturer need not include in its 
report property damage claims that are for $1,000 or less, on the 
ground that this would exclude minor matters and reduce reporting 
burdens. We request comments on whether it is appropriate to establish 
such an exclusion, and, if so, what the level should be.
    Tire manufacturers have historically kept records of all property 
damage claims, without regard for the amount of the claim, and this 
information has proven to be very valuable in identifying potential 
tire defects. For these reasons, we are proposing to require tire 
manufacturers to report all property damage claims, regardless of the 
amount of the claim.

J. Consumer Complaints

    We are proposing to require submission of information about certain 
``consumer complaints'' as ``other data'' under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).
1. Definition of ``Consumer Complaint''
    The ANPRM addressed consumer complaints but did not suggest a 
definition of ``consumer complaint.'' Nissan commented that the meaning 
of ``consumer complaints'' in the ANPRM was not clear, and that a 
definition was needed. DaimlerChrysler proposed the following 
definition: ``Reports of incidents causing some dissatisfaction with 
the product, not necessarily accompanied by any demand for compensation 
or reimbursement.'' Both DaimlerChrysler and Nissan noted that there 
was overlap between ``consumer complaints'' and ``claims,'' and that it 
would be difficult to completely separate the two. DaimlerChrysler also 
stated that about half of the over 100,000 ``customer contacts'' it 
receives

[[Page 66202]]

monthly represent consumer complaints and half involve questions or 
comments about the product.
    NTEA argued that only safety-related complaints should be reported, 
and that non-safety-related complaints should not be reported.
    Notwithstanding DaimlerChrysler's and Nissan's assertions, we 
believe that we can formulate a definition for ``consumer complaint'' 
that would not overlap with our proposed definition of ``claim.'' The 
primary distinction is that a ``consumer complaint'' would not seek 
monetary or other relief. It would be defined as:

a communication of any kind made by a consumer (or other person) to 
a manufacturer expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or 
relating the unsatisfactory performance of a product, or any actual 
or potential defect in a product, or any event that allegedly was 
caused by any actual or potential defect in a product, but not 
including a claim of any kind or a notice involving a fatality or 
injury.

    The term ``a communication of any kind'' would primarily include 
communications that are written but it would also include oral 
complaints, such as made through a telephone call, that a manufacturer 
memorializes in a document, including an electronic information system. 
The definition we propose would also include communications in which 
the owner of a vehicle or item of equipment that is subject to a defect 
or noncompliance recall asserted that the remedy failed to correct the 
defect or noncompliance.
    We recognize that this definition would include complaints about 
problems that do not involve safety. Based on our past experience 
during defect investigations, we do not believe that it would be 
appropriate to simply require reporting of ``safety-related'' problems, 
since manufacturers often have a much more narrow view of what 
constitutes a safety-related problem than we do. As explained below, we 
will assure that manufacturers only need to report consumer complaints 
about safety-related problems by itemizing the specific safety-related 
components and systems with respect to which complaints must be 
reported.
2. The Rationale for Requiring Reports of Consumer Complaints
    Over the years, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has 
made productive use of consumer complaints to manufacturers in its 
investigations of alleged defects. The problem experience of owners or 
operators in the real-world use of their vehicles and equipment, as 
reflected in their communications to manufacturers, has indicated 
failures of components and systems that can have an impact on safety. 
While a given level of complaints regarding some components or systems 
may not indicate the existence of a defect, a higher level might. (This 
level would vary, depending on the component or system involved.) 
Because we have no way to measure directly, or to count, all failures 
in the field, the frequency of consumer complaints (which complement 
warranty claims and field reports) can provide valuable indications of 
possible safety problems warranting further investigation. Consumer 
complaints were discussed in the Congressional hearings that led to the 
TREAD Act. See, e.g. Firestone Tire Recall: Hearing before the Subcomm. 
on Telecomm. Trade & Consumer Prot. and the Subcomm. on Oversight & 
Investigations of the House Comm. on Commerce. 106th Congress (as yet 
unpublished) (September 6, 2000) (Statement of Dr. Susan Bailey, 
Administrator, NHTSA).
    We stated in the ANPRM that consumer complaints might help in the 
early detection of possible safety-related defects, and might be 
``particularly important after the expiration of warranties.'' During 
the warranty period, consumer complaint data would complement warranty 
data. We sought comments on how, whether, and to what extent we should 
require manufacturers to submit information about consumer complaints 
to us under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).
    The responses from advocacy groups and the manufacturers differed 
significantly. Advocates and Public Citizen supported requiring the 
submission of consumer complaint information. One manufacturers' group, 
AORC, which represents a segment of equipment manufacturers, agreed 
with us that consumer complaints can provide a means to help NHTSA 
identify potential safety defects.
    Most manufacturers and trade associations that commented on this 
issue opposed requiring the submission of consumer complaint 
information. Essentially, they argued that consumer complaint data 
would not be of any real value as early warning information. With 
respect to light vehicles, Ford and the Alliance noted that owner and 
consumer correspondence is less technically rich or timely than other 
sources of information. Three equipment manufacturers (ArvinMeritor, 
Atwood and TRW) argued that consumer complaints were of only marginal 
value. RMA, representing tire manufacturers, stated that reporting of 
all informal complaints would generate information that is misleading 
because it might be misinterpreted as fact, and that verbal complaints 
did not usually provide sufficient information to verify the legitimacy 
of the complaint. MIC also argued that the majority of consumer 
complaints are unreliable.
    The ANPRM did not specifically state whether we expected to require 
manufacturers to submit complete copies of consumer complaints or 
simply ``counts'' of those complaints. MIC stated that ``reporting of 
consumer complaints should not be required due to the large volume and 
the need to evaluate them as material to the purpose of the rule unless 
the Agency contemplates receiving all such communications.'' Johnson 
Controls commented that even a count of customer complaints would 
overwhelm the agency ``by data that has questionable relevance to 
safety.''
    With respect to data other than consumer complaints, Public Citizen 
stated that, in most cases, summary information would be adequate until 
evidence of a potential defect surfaces. However, it would make an 
exception for consumer complaints. It would require submission of 
complete consumer complaints, because NHTSA ``already has in place a 
well-developed system for categorizing those complaints by scanning 
them into a searchable format.'' Advocates argued that consumer 
complaint information ``is an important resource,'' but suggested only 
that it ``should be reported in aggregate form in conjunction with 
other reported information.'' It would have a manufacturer search its 
database for relevant consumer reports for entries about the same or 
similar type of occurrence, vehicle system, part, or component when the 
manufacturer had information about a death, injury, or property damage.
    After reviewing the comments received and assessing the value of 
consumer complaints to an early warning system, we have decided to 
propose requiring manufacturers of 500 or more vehicles as well as all 
child seat manufacturers to provide aggregated consumer complaint 
information to us on a periodic basis, but not to require copies of 
such complaints periodically. NHTSA relies heavily on consumer 
complaint information in initiating and conducting defect 
investigations. We often open investigations on the basis of consumer 
complaints that we receive and screen. More than 75 percent of the 
investigations conducted by ODI are opened on the basis of complaints 
that we receive from individual consumers, or that are furnished to us 
by interested third parties, such as consumer groups, police 
departments, State vehicle

[[Page 66203]]

inspectors, and school bus and other fleets.
    After it opens investigations, ODI routinely asks manufacturers to 
provide information and copies of consumer complaints on the ``subject 
defect;'' also, ODI often asks manufacturers to update complaint 
information during the course of the investigation. This sort of 
information is very valuable in evaluating whether a defect related to 
motor vehicle safety exists in a given vehicle or equipment item. Since 
our first litigated defects enforcement case, United States v. General 
Motors Corp. (``Wheels''), 518 F.2d 420, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1975), which 
held that a prima facie case of defect can be made by showing a 
significant, ``non de minimis number'' of failures of a critical part 
that is expected to last for the life of the vehicle, the federal 
courts have recognized that consumer complaints can be a valuable 
source of evidence of the existence of a safety-related defect in motor 
vehicles.
    ODI's experience has shown that consumers are more likely to report 
a problem to the manufacturer than to NHTSA. Historically, the number 
of consumer complaints to the manufacturer (either directly or through 
dealers) that NHTSA obtains after opening a defect investigation 
usually exceeds by a substantial amount the number of complaints that 
NHTSA had received directly from consumers prior to opening the 
investigation. Also, many consumers do not complain to NHTSA until 
after they have complained (unsuccessfully) to the manufacturer. 
Although there is no single threshold of consumer complaints about a 
particular component or system that will automatically trigger a defect 
investigation, it is likely that if it were aware of a relatively large 
number of consumer complaints to a manufacturer, ODI might well open 
investigations earlier. To the extent that such an investigation led to 
a recall, opening it earlier would likely have led to corrective action 
at an earlier date and the avoidance of some additional incidents.
    Consumer complaints to child seat manufacturers have also 
consistently far outnumbered those to NHTSA about particular problems. 
For example, in November 1996, ODI opened an investigation of harness 
release button breaks in certain infant car seats. ODI had received 
four consumer complaints when it opened the investigation. After 
writing to the manufacturer and requesting complaint information, ODI 
learned that the company had received 328 complaints about the harness 
release button in those seats. Similarly, in May 1998, ODI opened an 
investigation of harness buckle failure in infant car seats on the 
basis of two consumer complaints. After writing to the manufacturer, 
ODI learned in July 1998, only two months later, that the company had 
received 92 complaints. Both of these investigations led to corrective 
action by the manufacturers.
    We believe that NHTSA's ability to identify potential defects in a 
timely manner, and to identify and understand emerging defect trends, 
would be greatly strengthened if the agency were to receive information 
about consumer complaints relatively shortly after the manufacturer 
does. At present, ODI's decisions as to which products should be 
investigated are often based on limited information from consumers.
    We are not proposing to require tire manufacturers to report the 
number of consumer complaints. We have concluded, from our experience 
with conducting tire investigations, that consumer complaints to tire 
manufacturers generally do not contain useful information for analysis 
of the alleged problem. For example, tire complaints do not 
consistently have full information describing the tire model, size, and 
date of manufacture. Without this identification, an analysis of 
failure rates and trends is not possible. Far more useful for analysis 
of potential defect trends is the tire manufacturer's adjustment 
(warranty) and claims data. The adjustment and claims data contain 
complete identification of the tire make, model, build plant type, and 
date of production. We have received such data in response to 
information requests issued during our defect investigations and find 
that these data are far superior than that contained in complaints.
    We are proposing to require larger motor vehicle manufacturers, and 
all child restraint system manufacturers, to report the number of 
consumer complaints that the manufacturers have received about 
designated components and systems of their vehicles or equipment during 
each reporting period. Vehicle manufacturers would also report 
complaints about fire. The designated components and systems would be 
the same as those on which property damage claims are reported.
    We are not proposing at this time to require reporting of consumer 
complaints from outside the United States. There are a number of issues 
related to foreign complaints, such as manufacturer review of 
potentially large numbers of complaints in foreign languages and NHTSA 
follow-up use, that dictate against requiring reporting, at least for 
the present.
    NTEA, representing final stage manufacturers, said that 
manufacturers should be required to report only about components for 
which they are responsible, rather than about all components in a 
vehicle about which they may have received complaints. In view of our 
proposal to only require reporting from manufacturers of 500 or more 
vehicles per year (other than incidents involving fatalities), it is 
likely that few NTEA members will have to submit consumer complaint 
information. However, for these that are covered, we note that the 
issue of which manufacturer's product is ``responsible'' often is 
disputed and is not determinative for early warning purposes. Moreover, 
the final stage manufacturer is often the only entity with which an 
owner deals. For example, a consumer who experiences a fuel leak in a 
vehicle is more likely to complain to that manufacturer than the 
chassis manufacturer. To assure that important information is 
submitted, we are proposing to require that each covered vehicle 
manufacturer report on all consumer complaints (and other specified 
information) that it receives.
    Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to review, 
maintain, and compile consumer complaints made in any form, including 
those made by telephone to their customer relations representatives 
(employees or contractors) and those made to dealers that are 
transmitted to the manufacturer, as well as written communications 
directly to the manufacturer. The manufacturers have the capability to 
do this, as they presently submit relevant complaints in response to 
ODI information requests during defect investigations.

K. Warranty Claims Information

    We are proposing to require submission of information about certain 
``warranty claims'' as ``other data'' under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).
1. Definitions of ``Warranty'' and ``Warranty Claim''
    In the ANPRM, we sought input related to reporting of warranty 
claims but did not define them. We have decided to propose definitions 
of warranty and warranty claim. After reviewing various definitions of 
``warranty,'' and comments on the issue, we have decided to propose a 
definition of warranty based on the definition of written warranty in 
the Moss-Magnuson Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(6), to which manufacturers are 
subject. Under that Act, a ``written warranty'' means:

(A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in 
connection with the sale of

[[Page 66204]]

a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the 
nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that 
such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified 
level of performance over a specified period of time, or

(B) any undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a 
supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace, or take 
other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that 
such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the 
undertaking, which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking 
becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a 
buyer for purposes other than resale of such product.

    We propose to tailor that definition to the subject matter at issue 
and to define ``warranty'' as:

Any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in 
connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to a 
buyer or lessee that relates to the nature of the material or 
workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or 
workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of 
performance over a specified period of time (including any 
extensions of such specified period of time), or any undertaking in 
writing in connection with the sale or lease by a manufacturer, 
distributor, or dealer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 
equipment to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action 
with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to 
meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking.

As explained below, we propose to require reporting of the number of 
repairs and/or replacements free of charge under warranties, as well as 
those under formal or informal extended warranties and good will. Good 
will includes the repair or replacement of a motor vehicle or item of 
motor vehicle equipment, including labor, paid for by the manufacturer, 
at least in part, when the repair or replacement is not covered under 
warranty. This can occur because the terms of the warranty have 
expired, or the issue is outside the terms of the warranty, for 
example, when the manufacturer pays or participates in voluntary Buy-
Backs and Lemon Law Buy-Backs of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.
    The normal practice is for dealers to perform the repair or to 
provide the replacement and then to submit a claim for reimbursement to 
the manufacturer. Accordingly, we propose that warranty claim means 
``any claim presented to a manufacturer for payment pursuant to a 
warranty program, extended warranty program, or good will.''
2. Reports Involving Warranty Claims
    In the ANPRM, we indicated that we believed that information about 
warranty claims can often provide relevant information that indicates 
the possible existence of a safety defect. Manufacturers, however, 
questioned this. The Alliance and Ford indicated that the data could be 
used to provide a dimension for a problem, but would be unlikely to be 
accurate as an early warning indicator. The primary problem, as seen by 
light duty vehicle manufacturers, is that there is a range of reasons 
for warranty claims that do not necessarily imply a safety defect. As 
Honda put it, ``Warranty rates may be more reflective of Honda's 
customer satisfaction policy than an indication of product quality or 
failure rate.''
    Most heavy duty vehicle manufacturers expressed concerns similar to 
those of light duty vehicle manufacturers. International Truck noted 
that ``a manufacturer usually identifies safety issues long before 
there is any indication of such problems in the warranty system.'' 
Several others commented on what they believed to be a lack of 
relationship between warranty claims and safety defects. Heavy duty 
vehicle purchasers, these commenters related, can choose from standard 
or premium warranty coverage terms, and some fleets negotiate 
individual coverage plans that are different from those applicable to 
light duty vehicles. The particular warranty terms vary from one to 
eight years, 100,000 miles to 1,000,000 miles, and 3250 operating hours 
to 18,000 operating hours.
    These commenters asserted that, without knowing the warranty terms 
for the vehicles on which manufacturers report claim data, it would not 
be possible for NHTSA to interpret the data validly. Additionally, 
these commenters stated, because purchasers can choose their warranty 
coverage, they can tailor it to their expected use of the vehicle. As a 
result, some warranty coverage categories could show particularly high 
occurrences of claims as a result of use patterns rather than safety 
defects. While this would suggest that comparisons might not be valid 
in determinations whether there is a defect, it does not demonstrate 
that the information would have little or no use. For example, high 
rates or substantially increasing trends might warrant further inquiry 
by the agency. Without this information, the agency might not have a 
basis to look into the matter.
    If some reporting of warranty data is required, light duty vehicle 
manufacturers argued that claims from foreign countries should be 
excluded. The reasons given by Nissan for exclusion include 
significantly greater complexity of reporting, the existence of a rich 
statistical sample due to volume and diverse operating conditions in 
the U.S. without additional foreign reports, different warranty periods 
in overseas markets, and different cultures and environments overseas. 
RVIA also opposed providing foreign warranty data. PACCAR suggested 
reporting foreign warranty information only if the components are 
substantially similar.
    MIC suggested including warranty claims information related to 
major systems or components, but excluding foreign warranty data. 
Harley Davidson would like to exclude claims unrelated to safety or 
performance, such as fit, finish, or top speed.
    Most equipment manufacturers opposed the reporting of warranty 
data; some asserted that they did not have such data and others 
asserted any they did have was of too poor quality to use. AAIA 
believes that historic data involving safety-related items that suggest 
potential for defects and/or recalls should be included in reporting. 
The major issue underlying the opposition of most equipment 
manufacturers appears to be that, in most cases, manufacturers of the 
vehicles receive warranty claims rather than the equipment 
manufacturers. As a result, the equipment manufacturers have limited 
information, much of which is considered proprietary by the vehicle 
manufacturers. Equipment manufacturers also repeated the data quality 
concerns asserted by both light and heavy duty vehicle manufacturers.
    Tire manufacturers, represented by RMA, cautioned against assuming 
that warranty adjustments reflect tire defects. It noted that ``many 
dealers, as well as tire manufacturers, sometimes use warranty 
adjustments as a means to ``keep the customer happy,'' and therefore 
the adjustment is ``not necessarily a statement about product 
performance or an indication of product deficiency.'' It also suggested 
that no foreign data or data prior to the effective date of the rule 
should be reported. It believes that foreign data is not comparable 
because of differences in coverage and road conditions and would be a 
burden to collect because of possible availability or integration 
problems between foreign and U.S. data.
    Advocacy groups wanted warranty claims data to be reported as part 
of the early warning system.
    Assuming that domestic warranty claims reporting is required, there 
was a common view among light duty vehicle manufacturers on what 
categories to include or exclude. Restraint systems, brake systems, 
steering systems and fuel systems would be included, as well as tires. 
However, this does not cover numerous

[[Page 66205]]

components whose failure has led to safety recalls.
    There was no consensus among heavy duty vehicle manufacturers on 
what warranty claims information should be reported. In part, the 
variance is a reflection of the different products the commenters 
manufacture. RVIA and PACCAR both named restraint systems, fuel tanks, 
steering systems, and axle/suspension/brake components as the most 
important systems on which to report (PACCAR suggested that build date 
of vehicles should be used in place of model year because model year is 
not identified in their warranty data and varies by manufacturer). TTMA 
focused on the components relevant to its members: axle/suspension/
brake components, rear impact guards, tires, lighting and related 
components, king-pins and fifth wheel couplers, and pintle hooks and 
drawbar eyes. Fontaine suggested that only components most frequently 
associated with recalls, including equipment to which a FMVSS applies 
and defined safety-related items, should be subject to reporting.
    After reviewing the comments received and assessing the value of 
warranty claims data to the early identification of possible safety 
defects, we have decided to propose to require manufacturers of 500 or 
more vehicles annually and all child seat and tire manufacturers to 
report aggregated warranty claims data from the U.S. on certain 
specified components and systems (as described below).
    Although we agree that the evidence of even a relatively high rate 
of warranty claims does not necessarily indicate the existence of a 
defect, our experience in conducting defect investigations has 
demonstrated that warranty claims information often reveals a potential 
problem that could be related to safety. As noted above, we are 
limiting our proposal to require information regarding only some 
systems. Moreover, we would not require actual copies of warranty 
claims, but rather a listing of the number of such claims regarding 
each specified component or system in each vehicle or equipment model 
received by the manufacturer in each reporting period.
    As with consumer complaints, manufacturers would have to maintain 
warranty claims, group the numbers of claims by reporting categories, 
and report them. Most, if not all, manufacturers maintain warranty 
information in computerized databases, and they have the ability to 
provide problem-specific warranty information under this rule, since 
they already do so in response to ODI's information requests during 
defect investigations.

L. Field Reports

    As part of its defect investigations, ODI regularly requires 
manufacturers to provide ``field reports'' about alleged defects. These 
include communications received by a manufacturer from the 
manufacturer's technical staff, a dealer, an authorized service center, 
or others, regarding an alleged problem in or dissatisfaction with a 
product in use. They are usually prepared by someone with technical 
expertise. There are far fewer field reports than consumer complaints, 
although practices resulting in the generation of field reports vary 
widely among manufacturers. Field reports are not specifically 
mentioned in the TREAD Act, but were addressed in the ANPRM. We sought 
input on the appropriate definition of field report, the components or 
systems on which field reports would be valuable in an early warning 
context, information in them that should be reported to NHTSA, and 
manufacturers' use of them. We are proposing to require submission of 
information and documents about certain ``field reports'' as ``other 
data'' under Section 30166(m)(3)(B).
1. Definition of ``Field Report''
    The ANPRM asked for comments on an appropriate definition of 
``field report.'' Two broad themes cut across industry responses. 
First, respondents stressed the importance of clearly and precisely 
defining the term ``field report.'' The term has a variety of meanings, 
both within and across industry segments. The Alliance requested that 
the term be defined as technical reports by technical staff involving 
one or more incidents in the field involving a covered vehicle system 
on a vehicle that had been sold. According to other respondents, the 
term has numerous meanings within the medium and heavy-duty truck 
industry as well as among equipment manufacturers and is not well 
defined across the tire industry. We were told that the trailer 
industry, for example, does not use the term ``field reports.''
    The second broad theme in the comments by manufacturers was a 
recommendation to limit the number and types of field reports to be 
reported to us. As reflected in the definition suggested above, the 
Alliance would limit it to certain technical reports about an incident 
(or several similar incidents) that are prepared by technical 
representatives. The Alliance would exclude unverified reports 
regarding customer complaints that are passed through to the 
manufacturer without any technical analysis. They would also exclude 
research reports or accident reconstruction reports prepared for local 
police departments or litigation. Commenters in the tire industry and 
the heavy trucking industry indicated that many of the communications 
they refer to as field reports deal with sales, marketing and customer 
satisfaction programs, which they would exclude.
    We have concluded that the Alliance's proposed restriction of the 
definition to ``technical reports'' that are prepared by ``technical'' 
employees is not feasible. It would require a definition of 
``technical'' and ``technical report'' and assessments of whether the 
author was a technical employee and whether the content amounted to a 
technical report, which could result in delays, under-reporting, and 
unnecessary burdens. Nonetheless, we agree that sales and marketing 
literature should not be included.
    There was considerable discussion about whether we should require 
the reporting of field reports prepared by a de