[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 274-279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31583]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 573, 576, and 577
[Docket No. 93-68; Notice 8]
RIN 2127-AG15
Defect and Noncompliance Reports; Record Retention; and Defect
and Noncompliance Notification
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant in part and denial in part of petitions for
reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is granting in part petitions for
reconsideration of an April 5, 1995 final rule that, among other
things, amended 49 CFR Parts 573, 576, and 577 (60 FR 17254). On
reconsideration, the agency is amending provisions of that final rule
concerning submission by manufacturers of schedules for recall
campaigns, recordkeeping regarding recalls of leased vehicles, record
retention period, and notification to lessees of recall campaigns.
NHTSA has concluded that these changes will reduce manufacturer burdens
without adversely affecting the agency's recall program.
DATES: Effective date: The amendments made by this final rule are
effective on January 4, 1996.
Any petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA no
later than February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section,
Room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan D. White, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room 5319,
Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-5227.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This final rule amends several sections of 49 CFR Parts 573, 576,
and 577, as those parts were recently amended on April 5, 1995. These
changes are being adopted by NHTSA in response to four petitions for
reconsideration of the April 5 final rule that were submitted by the
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), Chrysler
Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and General Motors
Corporation (GM).
In addition to seeking substantive changes, the petitions asked for
an extension of the original May 5, 1995 effective date of the April 5
amendments on the ground that it would be difficult to achieve
compliance by that date. On May 16, 1995, the agency published a notice
in the Federal Register setting a new effective date of July 7, 1995
for the April 5 amendments. 60 FR 26002. Subsequently, on July 7, 1995,
NHTSA suspended until further notice the effective date of four of the
provisions for which the petitioners had sought reconsideration. 60 FR
35458. That notice also confirmed that all other provisions of the
April 5 final rule would go into effect on July 7, 1995.
In September 1995, the Office of the Federal Register informed
NHTSA that it could not leave the effective date of a regulation
indefinite, as it had done in the July 7 Federal Register notice.
Accordingly, NHTSA published another notice setting January 2, 1996, as
the effective date of those four provisions, pending the decision on
reconsideration. 60 FR 50476 (Sept. 29, 1995).
Based on its review of the petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA
also decided that it would be advisable to obtain further information
from the public on four of the issues raised in the petitions.
Accordingly, the agency announced that it would hold a public meeting
in Detroit, Michigan to receive oral presentations on those issues and
to ask questions of those present, and that it would also receive
written comments on those issues. 60 FR 35459 (July 7, 1995).
The following five entities made presentations at the Detroit
meeting, which took place on July 24, 1995: AIAM, Chrysler, Ford, GM,
and the R. L. Polk Company (Polk). The following ten entities submitted
written comments to the public docket: Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates), American Automotive Leasing Association (AALA),
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Honda), Association of Consumer
Vehicle Lessors (ACVL), Ford, GM, Institute of International Container
Lessors (IICL), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA),
National Vehicle Leasing Association (NVLA), and Truck Renting and
Leasing Association (TRALA). In addition, NHTSA placed a written
transcript of the Detroit meeting in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
[[Page 275]]
The notice published today grants the petitions for reconsideration
with respect to the four provisions specified above and denies the
petitions insofar as they sought amendments to other provisions of the
April 5 final rule. The four provisions pertain to the enforcement of
the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 30101-30169) that set forth the obligations of
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to provide
notification that motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment
contain a safety-related defect or do not comply with a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard and to remedy the defect or noncompliance
without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30116-30121. The provisions of the final rule
regarding notification of defects and noncompliances in leased vehicles
implement a provision of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) that requires vehicle lessors to send
their lessees a copy of notifications received from manufacturers
regarding a safety-related defect or noncompliance in the lessees'
vehicles. 49 U.S.C. 30119(f).
Amendments to Part 573--Defect and Noncompliance Reports
NHTSA is amending two sections of 49 CFR Part 573, one that sets
forth requirements regarding the submittal by manufacturers of
schedules for owner notification and remedy campaigns (recalls) under
certain circumstances (section 573.5(c)(8)), and one that specifies
recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers in connection with recalls
of leased vehicles (section 573.7(d) and (e)).
Schedule for Recall Campaigns
In order to address an increase in the number of recalls in which
there has been a significant delay between the manufacturer's decision
that a defect or noncompliance exists and the commencement and
conclusion of the manufacturer's recall campaign, NHTSA included in the
April 5 final rule a requirement that manufacturers include in their
defect/noncompliance reports submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30119 and 49 CFR Part 573 (Part 573 Report) a detailed schedule for
those notification campaigns that would not begin within thirty days of
the Part 573 Report or end within 75 days of that Report. Several
petitioners objected to this requirement as unnecessary and unduly
burdensome. In oral statements at the public meeting and in their
written comments, manufacturers indicated that the time periods
specified in the final rule would mean that detailed schedules would be
required in most recalls, because most notification campaigns are
either begun more than 30 days after the Part 573 Report or not
completed within 75 days of that Report. In addition, they asserted
that the need to file detailed scheduling information with NHTSA at the
outset of most recalls would have the effect of delaying implementation
of recalls, because personnel and resources would have to be taken away
from other aspects of recall implementation to ensure compliance with
the added reporting requirements.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119(c), manufacturers must notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of safety defects and noncompliances ``within a
reasonable time'' after the decision that the defect or noncompliance
exists. NHTSA continues to believe strongly that safety recalls should
be implemented as soon as reasonably possible. However, it also
recognizes that the concerns raised by the manufacturers are serious
and need to be considered.
In order to make the rule more responsive both to the
manufacturers' concerns and to the public safety interest in prompt
notification of safety-related defects and noncompliances, NHTSA has
decided to modify the burdensome aspects of the recall schedule
provisions of the April 5 final rule. Thus, the agency is deleting the
requirement that extensive scheduling information and explanatory
material be provided in the manufacturer's Part 573 Report in instances
where notification would begin more than 30 days after the Part 573
Report is submitted or end more than 75 days after the Report. Instead,
under the rule adopted today, manufacturers will only be required to
include in their Part 573 Reports the estimated date when owners will
first be notified that a remedy for the defect or noncompliance is
available and the estimated date when all owners will have been so
notified.
No additional scheduling information will be required under the
regulation. In those relatively rare instances where the agency wishes
to further examine whether the manufacturer's time frame for the recall
is reasonable under the circumstances, it may request more detailed
information from the manufacturer on a case-by-case basis.
As NHTSA noted in the preamble to the April 5 final rule, in most
cases, manufacturers develop a recall implementation schedule for their
own internal use at the time they decide that a defect or noncompliance
exists, or promptly thereafter. The final rule adopted today simply
requires manufacturers to provide the agency with the two most basic
elements of this scheduling information when they file their Part 573
Reports. Under this revision, manufacturers will have flexibility to
tailor the recall notification schedule to the circumstances of the
particular recall, with far less of a reporting burden, while NHTSA
will retain the ability, on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that the
timing of recall notification is reasonable. The agency is retaining
its authority, as set forth in new section 577.7(a)(1), to order a
manufacturer to notify owners on a specific date when it finds, after
consideration of available information and the views of the
manufacturer, that such notification is in the public interest.
NHTSA recognizes that in some cases a manufacturer may not have any
scheduling information at the time it submits its Part 573 Report
(e.g., where the remedy has not been developed or tested, or where the
scope of the recall is uncertain). In such instances, the manufacturer
should indicate in the Report that the information is not available.
Thereafter, in accordance with section 573.5(b), the required
information ``shall be submitted as it becomes available.''
On reconsideration, NHTSA has also decided to rescind new section
573.5(c)(8)(iii), which would have required a manufacturer to describe
all factors that it anticipated could interfere with its ability to
adhere to the proposed recall schedule and to describe with specificity
the likely effect of each of those factors. The agency believes that
the burden of requiring advance information about events which might
never actually have any effect on the recall significantly outweighs
whatever safety benefit might be derived from it. In addition, the
agency believes that the purpose of that requirement can as readily be
served by the requirement, retained in today's final rule, that a
manufacturer must promptly advise NHTSA if circumstances arise that can
result in unanticipated delays of two weeks or more in recall campaign
implementation. This requirement, formerly included in section
573.5(c)(8)(iv), is now renumbered as Sec. 573.5(c)(8)(ii).
This final rule renumbers sections 573.5(c)(8) (v) and (vi) as
sections 573.5(c)(8) (iii) and (iv), respectively, and makes minor
changes in those paragraphs to reflect the changes to this section
described above, but makes no substantive changes. These provisions are
concerned with the effect on the requirement to file a notification
[[Page 276]]
schedule of a manufacturer's intent to submit a petition for an
exemption from the recall requirements of the statute on the ground
that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential.
Recordkeeping Regarding Recalls of Leased Vehicles
After reviewing the petitions for reconsideration and the oral and
written comments, NHTSA has decided to revise 49 CFR Sec. 573.7 (d) and
(e), which imposed requirements on manufacturers and lessors to
maintain lists of the names and addresses of ``known'' lessees of
vehicles covered by recall campaigns.
All of the manufactures that participated in the reconsideration
process stated that the divisions of the company that deal with recalls
and maintain owner lists do not know whether a particular vehicle is
leased. However, the manufacturers were concerned that they could be
held responsible under the rule for ``knowing'' that a vehicle was
leased because that information is contained in records maintained
elsewhere in the organization, such as corporate offices or
subsidiaries involved with fleet operations or consumer credit matters.
These manufacturers stated that it would be extremely costly and
time-consuming to integrate their leased vehicle records with the
vehicle owner lists prepared in connection with recall campaigns. Such
records are generally maintained in separate databases in separate
parts of the company and integrating the databases and reprogramming
the systems to generate the information in the manner required by
section 573.7(d) would require many months of work and substantial
additional financial cost. Similarly, Polk, which is the principal
source of vehicle registration information used by manufacturers in
recall mailings, stated at the public meeting that it could not
specifically identify for their manufacturer clients which vehicles on
a given list of registered vehicles were leased. Finally, even apart
from cost considerations, the manufacturers contended that they should
not have to bear the burden of maintaining records reflecting lessee
notification, since that should be the responsibility of the vehicle
lessors.
On the basis of the foregoing information, NHTSA has concluded that
any benefit to be gained by requiring manufacturers to identify those
vehicles on its recall notification lists that are leased and the
person or entity to whom notification was sent as the lessor or lessee
is far outweighed by the cost and time burdens that manufacturers would
incur to implement such a system. Moreover, the agency agrees that it
is not appropriate to require manufacturers to bear the burdens
associated with keeping records regarding the notification of lessees,
when Congress imposed the responsibility for such notification on the
lessors.
Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to rescind in its entirety section
573.7(d) of the April 5 final rule. The agency will monitor lessor
compliance with notification requirements of section 30119(f) through
direct contact with lessors rather than by reviewing manufacturer
records. To identify such lessors, NHTSA plans to obtain information
from manufacturers and lessor organizations.
For similar reasons, the agency is also amending section 573.7(e),
which primarily sets forth recordkeeping requirements applicable to
lessors, by deleting language in the last two sentences that are
applicable to record retention by manufacturers who send out recall
notifications directly to lessees pursuant to agreements with lessors.
Such lessees are, in effect, being notified as if they were owners,
without any lessor involvement, so there is no need to apply additional
recordkeeping burdens on the manufacturers to assure compliance
requirements of section 30119(f).
Two commenters, AALA and TRALA, representing lessors, contended
that the recordkeeping requirements for lessors set forth in section
573.7(e) are overly burdensome and time consuming because they require
them to establish new systems for keeping these records. In addition,
AALA questioned the utility of requiring lessors to maintain these
records in light of the fact that, once the lease has expired, the
vehicle generally undergoes one or more rapid changes of ownership.
AALA questioned the purpose behind the requirement to maintain records
on ``vehicles whose future ownership the lessor would be unable to
verify.''
The purpose of this recordkeeping requirement is not to verify
``future ownership'' of vehicles; it is to give NHTSA a means of
verifying that lessors are complying with their duty to provide their
lessees with copies of safety recall notifications. This is analogous
to the requirement that manufacturers must keep a record of recall
notifications sent to registered owners.
The agency has made every effort to ensure that the recordkeeping
requirements impose as little burden as possible on lessors. The
information required is minimal (less than what is required of
manufacturers), and it should not entail great expenditure of resources
to develop and maintain a record retention system. For these reasons,
NHTSA is retaining the substantive requirements of section 573.7(e) as
they apply to the lists that must be maintained by lessors.
Amendments to Part 576--Record Retention
Prior to the April 5 final rule, 49 CFR Sec. 576.5 required vehicle
manufacturers to retain relevant records for five years from the date
they are generated or acquired. The April 5 rule amended section 576.5
to require such records to be maintained for eight years from the last
date of the model year in which the vehicle to which the records relate
was produced. After considering the petitions for reconsiderations and
the oral and written comments submitted on this subject, NHTSA has
decided to rescind the amendment to section 576.5 and reinstate the
preexisting requirement.
The primary reason for this decision is the time and cost burdens
that the amendment would have placed upon vehicle manufacturers.
Several manufacturers stated that it would be highly costly and
extremely time consuming to change their computerized record keeping
systems to comply with the new record retention requirements. The
agency has concluded that the safety benefit that would be derived from
revising the record retention period requirements would be far
outweighed by costs and other burdens on resources that would be
incurred by manufacturers in order to make the change.
The agency is also making a technical amendment to 49 CFR
Sec. 576.6, which defines the records that must be retained by
manufacturers under Part 576. Ford pointed out that in the text of the
April 5 amendment, the word ``such'' does not appear as a modifier to
the term ``malfunctions'' the second time that word appears (in the
second sentence of the section). Ford expressed concern that the
removal of the word ``such'' could be construed to broaden the scope of
the section to cover additional types of records beyond those related
to motor vehicle safety.
The agency does not agree that the slight change in the wording of
this phrase would have had a substantive affect on the record retention
requirements, since the revised language specified that the requirement
only applied to records of ``malfunctions that may be related to motor
vehicle safety.'' Nevertheless, to prevent any possible
misunderstanding, NHTSA is making a
[[Page 277]]
technical amendment to this section to reinstate the preexisting
wording. The agency wishes to emphasize that the April 5 amendment to
section 576.6 that clarified that the record retention requirements
apply to records made on electronic media has not changed, and remains
in effect.
Amendments to Part 577--Defect and Noncompliance Notification
In its September 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
implement the ISTEA requirement that vehicle lessors furnish their
lessees with copies of notifications of safety-related defects and
noncompliances in leased vehicles, NHTSA proposed to require
manufacturers to include language in all recall notification letters to
lessors that would remind them of their statutory obligations. Several
comments submitted in response to the NPRM pointed out that it would be
very difficult for manufacturers to identify which owners were lessors.
On the basis of those comments, the April 5 final rule added a new
section 577.5(h), which required manufacturers to include language
describing a lessor's obligation to notify lessees of safety recalls in
all owner notification letters.
During the reconsideration process, this requirement was vigorously
challenged. Most commenters stated that the inclusion of lessor/lessee
language in all owner notification letters would add clutter to the
letter and could confuse the recipients of the owner notification
letter who are not lessors/lessees. In addition, commenters
representing various elements of the leased vehicle industry generally
expressed the view that requiring manufacturers to notify lessors of
their obligations is unnecessary for several alternative reasons: (1)
Many lessors have an arrangement with manufacturers in which the latter
mails recall letters directly to individuals on a list furnished by the
lessor; (2) many individual lessees receive notification letters
directly from manufacturers because the name of the lessee appears on
the title as the owner; and (3) many lessors are already aware of their
obligations and are complying with them.
These commenters also argued that the rule as written failed to
take into account several features of the leased vehicle market: e.g.,
the fact that in consumer leasing, the lessee is likely to be the
driver, whereas in commercial leasing, the vehicles will be driven by
individuals who are not the lessee of record; and the fact that some
lessors regard their lists of lessees as trade secrets and do not
disclose them to manufacturers (which are often perceived as
competitors).
On reconsideration, the agency has concluded that section 577.5(h)
should be rescinded. The likely confusion resulting from the inclusion
of this information in all owner notification letters will outweigh any
potential safety benefit associated with reminding lessors of their
obligations, particularly since there is reason to believe that most
lessors are already aware of those obligations. However, since it is
likely that not all lessors are aware of the duty to notify their
lessees of recalls, the agency believes that further steps are
appropriate to maximize the number of lessors that are informed of
their obligations under the statute and regulations. To that end, NHTSA
plans to send a notice to vehicle lessors informing them of their
statutory and regulatory obligations with respect to recall
notification of their lessees. The agency will also monitor the
performance of such lessors through periodic compliance reviews. The
agency plans to identify vehicle lessors from several sources,
including manufacturers, lessor associations, and commercial
publications.
Other Issues
The agency has also considered issues raised by petitioners and
commenters concerning other aspects of the April 5 final rule. Several
entities asserted that NHTSA should have allowed more time to comply
with the April 5 amendments. The agency recognized that the original
30-day period may not have allowed sufficient time for those affected
by the changes to come into compliance. However, NHTSA remains
convinced that the extension of the effective date for the provisions
not affected by the petitions for reconsideration to July 7 (providing
a total of over 90 days) was sufficient.
Most of the concerns about the time centered on the provisions
regarding manufacturer recordkeeping for leased car notifications
(section 573.7) and the changes in the duration of the record retention
requirements of section 576.5. However, those concerns are now moot due
to the substantive changes made to those sections on reconsideration.
The other issues raised by the petitions for reconsideration were
essentially restatements of arguments made during the comment period
prior to issuance of the final rule. The agency has concluded that no
change of those provisions is warranted.
Advocates objected to the fact that NHTSA postponed the effective
date of several provisions of the final rule while it was considering
the merits of the petitions for reconsideration. It noted that the
agency had recently failed to stay a regulatory action when Advocates
filed a petition for reconsideration.
Under 49 CFR Sec. 553.35(d), a petition for reconsideration does
not stay the effectiveness of a rule ``unless the Administrator so
provides.'' Thus, a decision whether or not to stay the effective date
of a rule pending consideration of petitions for reconsideration is
within the discretion of the Administrator.
In the Federal Register notice that first extended the effective
date of all provisions of the April 5 rule from May 5 to July 7, 1995
(60 FR 26002), the agency noted, ``The [petitioners] have presented
NHTSA with information that makes a credible showing that they are not
able to achieve compliance with at least some provisions of the final
rule by May 5, and that it will be some months before they are able to
do so.'' In addition, NHTSA noted that the short time between the
filing of the petitions for reconsideration and original effective date
precluded it from sorting through all of the provisions of this
multifaceted rule and the arguments in the petitions in order to
identify particular provisions whose effective date should have been
extended. Id.
The agency extended the effective date of four specified provisions
of the final rule beyond July 7, because it had decided that it needed
to gather further information on those issues. See 60 FR 35458 (July 7,
1995). The agency believes that this decision was reasonable under the
circumstances, and was adequately explained at the time.
The fact that the agency did not stay a rule for which Advocates
sought reconsideration is not material. Unlike the manufacturers,
Advocates did not risk noncompliance with Federal law if the agency had
not stayed its action.
Advocates also contended that NHTSA should not have considered the
merits of the arguments raised in the petitions for reconsideration
because the manufacturers did not present any new information that
could not have been presented prior to the issuance of the final rule.
While it may be true that the information was previously available,
there were relatively significant changes made to each of the four
provisions between the NPRM and the April 5 final rule. The
manufacturers could not have known exactly what the agency would
require in those provisions. Thus, it was appropriate to consider the
additional information and arguments presented in the reconsideration
petitions and in the subsequent comments.
[[Page 278]]
Rule Making Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulations) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has analyzed the changes made by this revised final rule and
determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. OMB
has also determined that it is not significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866. These changes will not impose any costs on the
regulated parties and are likely to reduce such costs.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I
certify that this proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rulemaking
action and determined that implementation of this action will not have
a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendments made by this final rule on reconsideration will not
impose any new recordkeeping burdens and are likely to reduce such
burdens.
5. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rule making does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
6. Civil Justice Reform Act
This final rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect.
Judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
section 702. That section does not require that a petition for
reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 573
Imports; Motor vehicle safety; Motor vehicles; Reporting and record
keeping requirements; Tires.
49 CFR Part 576
Motor vehicle safety; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 577
Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, Parts 573, 576, and 577 of Title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-30103, 30112, 30117-30121, 30166-
30167; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
2. Section 573.5 is amended by removing paragraphs (c)(8) (ii),
(iii), and (iv), redesignating paragraphs (c)(8) (v) and (vi) as
paragraphs (c)(8) (iii) and (iv) and revising them, and by adding a new
paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 573.5 Defect and noncompliance information report.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) The estimated date on which it will begin sending
notifications to owners that there is a safety-related defect or
noncompliance and that a remedy without charge will be available, and
the estimated date on which it will have completed such notification.
If a manufacturer subsequently becomes aware that either the beginning
or the completion date reported to the agency will be delayed by more
than two weeks, it shall promptly advise the agency of the delay and
the reasons therefor, and furnish a revised estimate.
(iii) If a manufacturer intends to file a petition for an exemption
from the recall requirements of the Act on the basis that a defect or
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
it shall notify NHTSA of that intention in its report to NHTSA of the
defect or noncompliance under this section. If such a petition is filed
and subsequently denied, the manufacturer shall provide the information
required by paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section within five Federal
government business days from the date the petition denial is published
in the Federal Register.
(iv) If a manufacturer advises NHTSA that it intends to file such a
petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements on
the grounds that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety, and does not do so within the 30-day
period established by 49 CFR 556.4(c), the manufacturer must submit the
information required by paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section no later
than the end of that 30-day period.
3. Section 573.7 is amended by removing paragraph (d),
redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (d), and revising new
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 573.7 Lists of purchasers, owners, lessors and lessees.
* * * * *
(d) Each lessor of leased motor vehicles that receives a
notification from the manufacturer of such vehicles that the vehicle
contains a safety-related defect or fails to comply with a Federal
motor vehicle safety standard shall maintain, in a form suitable for
inspection, such as computer information storage devices or card files,
a list of the names and addresses of all lessees to which the lessor
has provided notification of a defect or noncompliance pursuant to 49
CFR 577.5(h). The list shall also include the make, model, model year,
and vehicle identification number of each such leased vehicle, and the
date on which the lessor mailed notification of the defect or
noncompliance to the lessee. The information required by this paragraph
must be retained by the lessor for one calendar year from the date the
vehicle lease expires.
PART 576--RECORD RETENTION
4. The authority citation for part 576 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115, 30117-30121, 30166-30167;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
5. Section 576.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 576.5 Basic requirements.
Each manufacturer of motor vehicles shall retain as specified in
Sec. 576.7 all records described in Sec. 576.6 for a period of five
years from the date on which they were generated or acquired by the
manufacturer.
6. Section 576.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 576.6 Records.
Records to be retained by manufacturers under this part include all
documentary materials, films, tapes, and other information-storing
media that contain information concerning malfunctions that may be
related to motor vehicle safety. Such records include, but are not
limited to, communications from vehicle users and memoranda of user
complaints; reports and other documents, including material generated
or communicated by computer, telefax or other electronic means, that
are related to work
[[Page 279]]
performed under, or claims made under, warranties; service reports or
similar documents, including electronic transmissions, from dealers or
manufacturer's field personnel; and any lists, compilations, analyses,
or discussions of such malfunctions contained in internal or external
correspondence of the manufacturer, including communications
transmitted electronically.
PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
7. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-30103, 30112, 30115, 30117-30121,
30166-30167; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR
501.8.
Sec. 577.5 [Amended]
8. Section 577.5 is amended by removing paragraph (h) and
redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph (h).
Issued on: December 21, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-31583 Filed 12-29-95; 10:49 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
