[Federal Register: December 11, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 238)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64087-64093]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de01-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 573 and 577
[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-11108]
RIN 2127-AI23
Motor Vehicle Safety; Acceleration of Manufacturer's Remedy
Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend regulations that pertain to
manufacturers' remedies for defective or noncomplying motor vehicles
and replacement equipment in order to implement Section 6(a) of the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. Section 6(a) provides that the Secretary of Transportation
may require a manufacturer to accelerate the manufacturer's remedy
program if the Secretary determines that it is not likely to be capable
of completion within a reasonable time and the Secretary finds: there
is a risk of serious injury or death if the remedy program is not
accelerated; and that acceleration of the remedy program can be
reasonably achieved by expanding the sources of replacement parts,
expanding the number of authorized repair facilities, or both.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before February 11,
2002.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
You may also submit your comments electronically by logging onto the
Dockets Management System website at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov. Click on
``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for
filing the document electronically.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document in your comments.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the
Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for non-legal issues, Jonathan White,
Office of Defects Investigation, NSA-11, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, telephone (202) 366-5227; for legal issues,
Michael T. Goode, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-10, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, telephone (202) 366-5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 1, 2000, the TREAD Act, Pub. L. 106-414, was enacted.
The statute was, in part, and as it relates to the specific provision
discussed below, a response to congressional concerns related to
manufacturers' delays in repairing or replacing motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment that contain a safety-related defect or fail to
comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), the agency may make a final decision that
a motor vehicle or replacement equipment contains a defect related to
motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 30118(c), a
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment is required to
notify the agency when it determines, or should determine, that a
vehicle or equipment contains a defect that is related to motor vehicle
safety or the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable
safety standard.
Under both circumstances, the manufacturer is required to notify
owners, purchasers and dealers of the defect or noncompliance, and to
provide a remedy without charge. Section 30119 sets forth statutory
requirements for owner notification and requires the manufacturer to
give such notice within a reasonable time. See also 49 CFR part 577.
However, if a final decision has been rendered under section 30118(b),
then the Secretary prescribes the date by which the manufacturer must
provide notification.
49 U.S.C. 30120 further provides that a manufacturer of a
noncompliant or defective motor vehicle or replacement equipment must
repair it or replace it with an identical or reasonably equivalent
vehicle or equipment or, in the case of a vehicle, refund the purchase
price less depreciation. Under section 30120(c), if a manufacturer
decides to repair a defective or noncomplying motor vehicle or
replacement equipment and the repair was not done adequately within a
reasonable time, the manufacturer is required to replace the vehicle or
equipment without charge or, for a vehicle, refund the purchase price.
Failure to repair within 60 days after its presentation to a dealer is
prima facie evidence of failure to repair or replace within a
reasonable time. The agency can extend the 60-day period. This
[[Page 64088]]
section also requires the manufacturer to submit its program for
remedying a defect or noncompliance to the agency.
49 CFR 573.5(c)(8) requires a manufacturer, as part of its defect
and noncompliance information reports submitted to NHTSA, to provide a
description of the manufacturer's program for remedying the defect or
noncompliance. In 1995, NHTSA amended that section to require a
manufacturer to advise NHTSA of the estimated date on which it will
begin sending notifications to owners of the defect or noncompliance
and that a remedy without charge will be available, as well as the
estimated date when the notification campaign will be completed.
Section 573.5(c)(8)(ii). In the preamble to the proposed rule that led
to the amendment, NHTSA explained that there had been an increase in
the number of recalls in which there was a significant delay in the
commencement of the remedy campaign, and, in some instances, an
inordinate extension of the duration of the campaign. NHTSA further
explained that the amendment was necessary in order to assure that the
timing and duration of remedy campaigns were appropriate, and also for
NHTSA to be able to respond more fully to public questions about the
timing of recalls. 58 FR 30817, September 27, 1993.
Section 6(a) of the TREAD Act added a new paragraph (3) to 49
U.S.C. 30120(c), which provides that if the Secretary determines that a
manufacturer's remedy program is not likely to be capable of completion
within a reasonable time, the Secretary may require the manufacturer to
accelerate the remedy program if the Secretary finds: There is a risk
of serious injury or death if the remedy program is not accelerated;
and acceleration of the remedy program can be reasonably achieved by
expanding the sources of replacement parts, expanding the number of
authorized repair facilities, or both.
The agency expects that in the vast majority of recalls, this
provision will not be invoked, primarily because in most cases
manufacturers implement and complete their remedy programs within
reasonable times under the circumstances.
While 49 U.S.C. 30120(c)(3) is effective in the absence of
rulemaking, it provides that the Secretary may prescribe regulations to
carry it out.
The authority to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United
States Code, under which the rules directed by the TREAD Act are to be
issued, has been delegated to NHTSA's Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR
1.50.
Pursuant to the authorization in 49 U.S.C. 30120(c)(3), we are
proposing to amend 49 CFR part 573 to add a new section 573.4. We are
also proposing to amend 49 CFR part 577 to add a new section 577.12.
Below is a summary and explanation of today's proposed rule.
II. Discussion
A. Who Would Be Required To Comply With Today's Proposal?
This rule would apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and
replacement equipment whose products have been determined to contain a
safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a FMVSS. The agency had
identified the manufacturing entities who are covered by 49 U.S.C.
30118-30120 in 49 CFR 573.3(a). In view of the above, we are proposing
that section 573.3(a)-(f) apply to today's proposed regulation as well.
B. Under What Circumstances May the Administrator Require A
Manufacturer To Accelerate Its Remedy Program?
The decision to require a manufacturer to accelerate its remedy
program would be a discretionary decision by the Administrator. We are
proposing that, to invoke this provision, the Administrator would be
required to make two findings and one determination.
Under today's proposed regulation, one required finding, which
would be adopted from the statute, would be that there is a risk of
serious injury or death if the remedy program is not accelerated. To
make this finding, there need only be a risk of such injury or death,
not necessarily a high probability, and most safety recalls address
circumstances where there is such a risk.
Second, with respect to the statutory requirement of a finding that
``acceleration of the remedy program can be reasonably achieved by
expanding the sources of replacement parts, expanding the number of
authorized repair facilities, or both,'' we likewise propose to adopt
this statutory phrase as part of the rule.
With regard to the potential expansion of the sources of
replacement parts, this finding is most likely to be made when a
substantial aftermarket supply capability exists. For example, there
are substantial numbers of quality aftermarket parts such as tires,
brake rotors, steering and suspension components, and ignition
components that can be used on many, if not most, vehicles. Thus, for
example, if we were to find that an undue delay in completion of a
remedy campaign was due to a manufacturer's inability to produce a
sufficient number of brake rotors from its own plants or from its own
suppliers, we could require the manufacturer to utilize, or allow
owners to utilize, brake rotors from other sources that were
appropriate for use on the vehicles in question. On the other hand, it
is less likely that this finding would be made where there is no or
little aftermarket supply capability for the defective components, such
as air bag control units and many ABS brake control units, since the
particular specifications of the remedy part may be unique to the
particular vehicle or supplier. However, even when there is no
aftermarket production of the part to be used as a remedy, the
manufacturer may have the ability to expand the sources of replacement
parts, such as by contracting with additional suppliers. In addition,
in keeping with the congressional goal of assuring that a remedy be
provided within a reasonable time, under today's proposal, the addition
of assembly lines and/or production shifts within a factory would also
be an expansion of the source of the parts within the meaning of
section 30120(c)(3)(B).
With regard to the expansion of the number of authorized repair
facilities, we note that major vehicle manufacturers have large
networks of dealers to perform repairs. Ordinarily, we would not expect
to make a finding reflecting the need for these major manufacturers to
expand the number of authorized repair facilities. Other vehicle
manufacturers, such as importers of limited-production vehicles and
multistage vehicle manufacturers, and most manufacturers of equipment
items do not have established networks of repair facilities. There have
been instances in which an owner would have to travel a large distance
to obtain the remedy repair directly from the manufacturer or one of
its dealers. This may cause a consumer to delay or even forego the
repair. Under the proposed rule we could require such manufacturers to
expand the number of repair facilities in order to assure that the
campaign is completed in a reasonable time.
Third, with respect to the need for a determination, required by
statute, that a manufacturer's remedy program is not likely to be
capable of completion within a reasonable time, we propose that
reasonableness would be decided in light of all of the circumstances,
including the efforts that the manufacturer has made to complete the
remedy program, as well as the safety risks associated with the defect
or noncompliance.
[[Page 64089]]
The statute is silent with respect to when we can require a
manufacturer to accelerate its program under section 6(a). In the
interests of motor vehicle safety, we believe it appropriate to impose
such a requirement at any time that the statutory conditions are found
to exist.
We also anticipate that there would be consultation between NHTSA
and the manufacturer before a manufacturer would be formally required
to accelerate the remedy program, but such consultation is not required
by the statute. We further anticipate that in most cases in which we
believed that acceleration was appropriate, the manufacturer would take
action without being directed to do so by the agency.
C. How Would Acceleration Affect the Nature or Quality of the Remedy?
We would require manufacturers to assure that replacement parts
from additional suppliers used under accelerated remedy programs are
equivalent to the remedy parts supplied by the manufacturer, so that
there will be no difference in the quality of the remedy received by
owners. However, in those instances where parts are purchased from
manufacturers other than those who would ordinarily supply parts for
the vehicle in question, it may be difficult to determine whether or
not the part is equivalent. We are proposing that we would have the
authority, in appropriate cases, to require manufacturers to provide
information to owners with respect to any differences among different
brands of replacement parts.
For tires, we believe that there are guidelines available to assure
that the tires from alternative sources are at least equivalent. The
Uniform Tire Quality Grading System (UTQGS) sets forth three criteria
that buyers can use to make relative comparisons among tires. See 49
CFR 575.104. The manufacturer would be required to provide tires of a
size and type that are suitable for the owner's vehicle and of the same
or better UTQGS rating in each category. Alternatively, a manufacturer
could do what Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) did in connection
with the recent recall of millions of Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT
tires. Firestone authorized owners to obtain replacement tires of their
choice from any tire manufacturer, and agreed to reimburse the owner up
to a specified amount per tire. Of course, the reimbursement amount
would have to be sufficient to allow for the purchase of a tire that is
reasonably equivalent to the defective or noncompliant tire.
As previously indicated, if warranted under the circumstances, we
could require a manufacturer to add additional suppliers and/or
production lines and/or production shifts in order to increase the
number of available remedy parts. In those cases in which the
manufacturer identified supplemental repair facilities, it would have
to assure that the facility had the parts and expertise needed to
adequately perform the remedy.
D. What Would the Manufacturer Be Required To Do After Being Required
To Accelerate Its Remedy Program?
The manufacturer would be required to implement the accelerated
remedy program as required by the agency. The level of detail and
direction may vary. It may include expanding the sources of replacement
parts provided to the manufacturer's franchised dealers, expanding the
number of authorized repair facilities to include facilities not owned
or franchised by the manufacturer that have repair or replacement
capabilities. It may include both or other provisions. It may require
submission of implementation plans and schedules. Particularly where
non-owned or non-franchised facilities are involved, it may include
reimbursement requirements, which, are discussed below.
E. What Notice Would the Manufacturer Be Required To Send To Vehicle or
Equipment Owners?
This would depend upon the circumstances. If the manufacturer has
not sent an initial notification to owners under 49 CFR part 577,
relevant information about alternative parts or authorized repair
facilities could be included in the initial notification letter. If the
manufacturer has sent an initial notification to owners under 49 CFR
part 577, the manufacturer would normally be required to send a
supplemental letter to all owners except those who have had the remedy
performed. Proposed section 577.12 would apply to the scope, timing,
form, and content of the notice to be sent by the manufacturer.
F. Accelerated Remedy Programs Involving Reimbursement
In some circumstances, the remedy program could be accelerated
without any payment by owners, and there would therefore be no need for
reimbursement. In these instances, appropriate financial arrangements
would be made between the manufacturer and the dealer or repair
facility. For example, when a vehicle is repaired at a dealer who is
franchised or authorized by the vehicle manufacturer or when the parts
in question (e.g., a tire) are provided by a facility owned or
franchised by the manufacturer, the manufacturer would reimburse the
dealer for the cost of the parts as well as labor, and the owner would
not make a payment. However, in other circumstances, the accelerated
program might be structured to allow an owner to obtain the remedy from
independent third-party parts suppliers and/or repair facilities, pay
that independent entity, and then be reimbursed by the manufacturer.
Reimbursement under an accelerated remedy program would be similar
in most respects to the applicable provisions of our proposed
regulation implementing section 6(b) of the TREAD Act, codified as the
third and fourth sentences of 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) (``pre-notification
remedy''). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we have
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement that
section. Of course, there are two obvious differences. The effective
periods of the respective programs are different. Under the pre-
notification remedy program, reimbursement may be available for
expenditures before notification of a defect or noncompliance. Under an
acceleration of remedy program, reimbursement may be available for
expenditures after notification, as provided in the program. Second,
under the pre-notification remedy program, reimbursement may be
available for a range of remedies that addressed the underlying
problem. Under an acceleration of remedy program, reimbursement may not
be available at all under the program, and when it is, it may be
conditioned on use of a specific remedy. In addition, the acceleration
of remedy program may limit the owner to obtaining the remedy at
specific service facilities. However, these substantive differences do
not affect the application of the general procedures for reimbursement
in the pre-notification remedy program. The provisions pertaining to
what documentation a manufacturer may require a claimant to submit to
obtain reimbursement would be identical to this program, as would be
the provisions relating to the amount of reimbursement and the time
frame for seeking reimbursement, and the method for owners to obtain a
copy of the plan. Since the process governing reimbursement under the
two programs would virtually be the same, we see no need to repeat the
provisions in this proposal or discuss the provisions here. Interested
persons are referred to our discussion of these provisions in the
[[Page 64090]]
preamble to the pre-notification remedy NPRM mentioned above. Of
course, to the extent that we modify the proposal in that NPRM
following public comment, we would make corresponding changes to the
applicable provisions of the accelerated remedy rule.
G. Could a Manufacturer Terminate an Accelerated Remedy Program?
We believe that a manufacturer should be able to terminate an
accelerated remedy program when the conditions that gave rise to the
accelerated program no longer exist. We do not believe that we should
require a manufacturer to authorize the use of alternative replacement
parts or to reimburse an owner who purchased such parts if the
manufacturer is able to provide the recall remedy promptly. Thus, we
are proposing that a manufacturer that believes that it can meet all
future demand for the remedy through its own mechanisms (e.g., its
dealers) may request the agency to authorize it to terminate the
accelerated remedy program.
Under the proposal, if NHTSA agrees, the manufacturer could
terminate the program, provided that notice is given at least 30 days
in advance of the termination date of the accelerated component of the
remedy program to all owners of unremedied vehicles or equipment. We
invite comment with regard to how such notice should be given.
We are concerned that a notice terminating the accelerated aspect
of a recall could confuse an owner or be misinterpreted by an owner as
terminating the recall. As a result, the owner might not obtain the
remedy, which would compromise motor vehicle safety. We request comment
on how to avoid this result.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O.
12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This rulemaking is not considered
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. The impacts of this rule are expected to be so
minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
We do not foresee substantially increased costs to the manufacturer
because of an accelerated remedy program. First, a remedy program
already exists. The scope of the remedy program is not being expanded.
The only aspects being affected are the time for completion and the
alternative sources of the remedy. Second, we expect this provision to
be invoked infrequently, since in the large majority of cases the
manufacturer's original remedy program will resolve the defect or
noncompliance in a timely fashion.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The impacts of this rule are expected to be so minimal as not
to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation because this
provision only involves accelerating a manufacturer's remedy program
and the incidence of such an occurrence is expected to be limited.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposal under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it will not have any significant impact
on the quality of the human environment.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has determined that this proposed rule will impose new
collection of information burdens within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
5. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input'' by State
and local officials in the development of ``regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.'' The E.O. defines this phrase to include
regulations ``that have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' This proposed rule, which would provide for requiring
manufacturers to accelerate a remedy program, will not have substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in E.O. 13132. This rule making does not have those implications
because it applies to a manufacturer, and not to the States or local
governments.
6. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have a retroactive or preemptive
effect. Judicial review of the rule may be obtained pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for
reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribunal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. Because this proposed rule would not have a $100
million annual effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment is necessary and
one will not be prepared.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not
clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this rule.
Submission of Comments
How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Rule?
In developing this proposed rule, we tried to address the
anticipated concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help
us. We invite you to provide different views on it, new approaches we
have not considered, new data, how this rule may affect you, or other
relevant information. Your comments
[[Page 64091]]
will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
Provide solid information to support your views.
If you estimate potential numbers or reports or costs,
explain how you arrived at the estimate.
Tell us which parts of the rule you support, as well as
those with which you disagree.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Refer your comments to specific sections of the rule, such
as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory
sections.
Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with
your comments.
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain
instructions for filing the document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel (NCC-30), NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People and Other
Materials Relevant to This Rulemaking?
You may view the materials in the docket for this rulemaking on the
Internet. These materials include the written comments submitted by
other interested persons and the preliminary regulatory evaluation
prepared by this agency. You may read them at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the
same location.
You may also see the comments and materials on the Internet. To
read them on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2000-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the materials in the docket you selected, click on the desired
comments. You may download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Parts 573 and 577 as set forth below.
PART 57B--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS
1. The authority citation for Part 573 of Title 49, CFR, continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50; 501.2.
2. Part 573 is amended, by adding Sec. 573.14 to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 573.14 Accelerated remedy program
(a) An accelerated remedy program is one in which the manufacturer
expands the sources of replacement parts needed to remedy the defect or
noncompliance, or expands the number of authorized repair facilities
beyond those facilities that usually and customarily provide remedy
work for the manufacturer, or both.
(b) The Administrator may require a manufacturer to accelerate its
remedy program if:
(1) The Administrator finds that there is a risk of serious injury
or death if the remedy program is not accelerated;
(2) The Administrator finds that acceleration of the remedy program
can be reasonably achieved by expanding the sources of replacement
parts, expanding the number of authorized repair facilities, or both;
and
(3) The Administrator determines that the manufacturer's remedy
program is not likely to be capable of completion within a reasonable
time.
(c) The Administrator, in deciding whether to require the
manufacturer to accelerate a remedy program and what to require the
manufacturer to do, may consider a wide range of information,
including, but not limited to, the following: the manufacturer's
initial or revised report submitted under Sec. 573.5(c), information
from the manufacturer, information from other manufacturers and
suppliers, information from any source related to the availability and
implementation of the remedy, and the seriousness of the
[[Page 64092]]
risk of injury or death associated with the defect or noncompliance.
(d) As required by the Administrator, an accelerated remedy program
shall include the manner of acceleration (the expansion of the sources
of replacement parts, expansion of the number of authorized repair
facilities, or both), may identify the parts to be provided and/or the
sources of those parts, may require the manufacturer to notify the
agency and owners about any differences among different sources or
brands of parts, may require the manufacturer to identify additional
authorized repair facilities, and may specify additional owner
notifications related to the program. The Administrator may also
require the manufacturer to include a program to provide reimbursement
to owners who incur costs to obtain the recall remedy from sources that
are not reimbursed by the manufacturer.
(e) Under an accelerated remedy program, the remedy that is
provided shall be equivalent to the remedy that would have been
provided if the program had not been accelerated. The replacement parts
used to remedy the defect or noncompliance shall be reasonably
equivalent to those that would have been used if the remedy program
were not accelerated. The service procedures shall be reasonably
equivalent. In the case of tires, the replacement tire shall be the
same size and type as the defective or noncompliant tire, shall be
suitable for use on the owner's vehicle, and for passenger car tires,
shall have the same or better rating in each of the three categories
enumerated in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System. See 49 CFR
575.104. For child restraint systems, any replacement shall be of the
same type and the same overall quality.
(f) In those instances where the accelerated remedy program
provides that an owner may obtain the remedy from a source other than
the manufacturer or its dealers or authorized facilities by paying for
the remedy and/or its installation, the manufacturer shall reimburse
the owner for the cost of obtaining the remedy as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. Under these
circumstances, the accelerated remedy program shall include, to the
extent required by the Administrator:
(1) A description of the remedy and costs that are eligible for
reimbursement, including identifying the equipment and/or parts and
labor for which reimbursement is available;
(2) Identification, with specificity or as a class, of the
alternative repair facilities at which reimbursable repairs may be
performed, including an explanation of how to arrange for service at
those facilities; and
(3) Other provisions assuring appropriate reimbursement that are
consistent with those set forth in Sec. 573.13, including but not
limited to provisions regarding the procedures and needed documentation
for making a claim for reimbursement, the amount of costs to be
reimbursed, the office to which claims for reimbursement shall be
submitted, the requirements on manufacturers for acting on claims for
reimbursement, and the methods by which owners can obtain information
about the program.
(g) In response to a manufacturer's request, the Administrator may
authorize a manufacturer to terminate its accelerated remedy program if
the Administrator concludes that the manufacturer can meet all future
demands for the remedy through its own sources in a prompt manner. The
manufacturer shall provide individual notice of the termination of the
program to all owners of unremedied vehicles and equipment at least 30
days in advance of the termination date in a form approved by the
Administrator.
(h) Each manufacturer shall implement any accelerated remedy
program required by the Administrator according to its terms.
* * * * *
3. Part 577 is amended by adding Sec. 577.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 577.12 Notification pursuant to an accelerated remedy program.
(a) When the Administrator requires a manufacturer to accelerate
its remedy program under Sec. 573.12 of this chapter, in addition to
complying with other sections of this part, the manufacturer shall
provide notification in accordance with this section.
(b) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, or when the
Administrator determines otherwise, the notification under this section
shall be sent to the same recipients as provided by Sec. 577.7. If no
notification has been provided to owners pursuant to this part, the
provisions required by this section may be combined with the
notification under Secs. 577.5 or 577.6. A manufacturer need only
provide a notification under this section to owners of vehicles or
items of equipment for which the defect or noncompliance has not been
remedied.
(c) The manufacturer's notification shall include the following:
(1) If there was a prior notification, a statement that identifies
it and states that this notification supplements it.
(2) A statement that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has required the manufacturer to accelerate its remedy
program and a statement of how it has been expanded (e.g., by expanding
the sources of replacement parts and/or expanding the number of
authorized repair facilities).
(3) In the case of an accelerated remedy program involving repair
through service facilities other than those owned or franchised by the
manufacturer or through the manufacturer's authorized dealers, a
statement that the owner may elect to obtain the remedy using
designated service facilities other than those that are owned or
franchised by the manufacturer or are the manufacturer's authorized
dealers.
(4) In the case of an accelerated remedy program involving
replacement of parts or equipment from sources other than the
manufacturer, a statement that the owner may elect to obtain the remedy
using replacement parts or equipment from specified sources other than
the manufacturer.
(5) The following statements and information shall be included
insofar as they are applicable:
(i) A statement indicating whether the owner will be required to
pay the alternative facility and/or parts supplier, as may be
applicable, subject to reimbursement by the manufacturer;
(ii) Identification of alternative service facilities where the
owner may have repairs performed;
(iii) An explanation of how to arrange for service at alternative
service facilities; and/or
(iv) Identification of alternative replacement parts that may be
utilized.
(6) If applicable, the manufacturer's notification shall include
the following language, with the blanks filled in appropriately: ``If
you elect to obtain the remedy [at a service facility other than the
[manufacturer's], one of its dealers or another authorized facility]
[and/or] [using sources of replacement parts or equipment other than
[the manufacturer's]] and you pay for [that service] [or] [those
parts], you will be eligible to be reimbursed for your expenditures. To
see what costs are eligible for reimbursement and what procedures
apply, you can review or obtain [manufacturer's] accelerated remedy
program at [the specific Internet URL for the program], by calling
[manufacturer] at [the manufacturer's toll-free telephone number], or
by writing to [manufacturer] at [address].
[[Page 64093]]
Issued on: December 5, 2001.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 01-30488 Filed 12-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P