RU

1

Emails as Legal Evidence and Mechanical Failures within Toyota

Angie Burks, JD1

Case study examination of engineering ethics, mechanical failures, emails as legal

evidence, liabilities of electronic communication, and internal versus external

organizational messages.

Background:

Every email within the work place is a legal document. An email is digital evidence with

a time and date stamp, documented author and can be admissible i n court. Once

deleted, it still exist in the server.

Engineers rely on emails to discuss sensitive information concerning mechanical designs

and failures, biomedical implant risks, chemical hazards and data security breaches.

Recognizing that every email is a potential legal document, the content can be

detrimental or beneficial to an organization, employees and the public.

In May of 2009, four people were killed due to Toyota pedal accelerator issues. Specific

car models would accelerate from 70 mph to 120+ mph without additional pressure on

the pedals.

Irv Miller, a Toyota group Vice President, wrote in an internal email dated

January 10, 2010, “I hate to break this to you but we have a tendency for mechanical

failure in accelerator pedals of a certain manufacturer on certain models…we are not

protecting our customers by keeping this quiet.”

In 2014, Toyota faced over 400 wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits.2

1 Angi e Burks i s a graduate of the Bos ton Uni vers i ty School of Law and was a Communi ty Bui l der Fel l ow at Harvard Uni vers i ty’s Kennedy School of Government. A Seni or Lecturer wi thi n the Department of Engi neeri ng Educati on at

The Ohio State University, her interests include engineering ethics and electronic communication as legal evidence.

Acknowledgments are made to MJ Faure for supporting the development of this case and Ti m Ros eborough for edi ti ng.

2 Dougl as , D., & Fl etcher, M. (2014, March 19). Toyota reaches $1.2 Bi l l ion Settl ement to End Probe of Accel erator

Probl ems . Washington Post. Retri eved from https ://www.was hi ngtonpos t.com/bus i nes s /economy/toyota -

reaches -12-bi l lion-settl ement-to-end-cri mi nal -probe/2014/03/19/5738a3c4 -af69-11e3-9627-

c65021d6d572_s tory.html

2

Toyota’s Success – Safety and Reliability

The Toyota Motor Corporation was founded in Japan on August 28, 1937. Toyota’s global

divisions include Lexus, Scion, Hino, and Ranz. With a reputation among consumers for safety

and reliability, Toyota became the first car manufacturer in the world to produce 10 million cars

per year.3

In 2013, Toyota reported assets of over $377.281 billion.4 Jake Fisher, an engineer, stated in

Consumer Reports Magazine, “Often when people buy a Toyota, they are buying it because it is

trouble free.”5

European Recall in 2008 and a Fiery California Crash in 2009

In early 2008, multiple reports of sudden acceleration were found in Toyota vehicles operating

in Europe.6 The following year, Toyota’s European Division issued technical information

“identifying a production improvement and repair procedure to address complaints by

customers who reported sticking accelerator pedals, sudden rpm increase, and sudden vehicle

acceleration.” The information was sent to distributors throughout Europe, Russia, Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Israel.7

In the United States, in July of 2009, a Toyota service manager reported to Toyota his

experience of test driving a Tacoma truck that accelerated to 95 mph from 71 mph without his

foot on the pedal.8

3 TMC Announces Res ul ts for December 2013 and CY2013" (Pres s rel eas e). Japan: Toyota Motor Corporati on.

2013-01-29.

4 TOYOTA MOTOR CORP/ 2013 Annual Report Form (20-F)" (XBRL). Uni ted States Securi ti es and Exchange

Commi s s i on. 2013-06-24.

5 Vl as i c, B., & Bunkl ey, N. (2009, November 25). Toyota Wi l l Fi x or Repl ace 4 Mi l l i on Gas Pedal s. New York Times.

Retri eved from http://www.nyti mes .com/2009/11/26/bus i nes s /26toyota.html ?_r=0

6 Dougl as , D., & Fl etcher, M., s upra note 2.

7 Pos t Staff. (2010, Apri l 7). Toyota Exec's Emai l Before Gas Pedal Recal l : We Need to Come Cl ean. New York Post.

Retri eved from http://nypos t.com/2010/04/07/toyota -execs -e-mai l -before-gas -pedal -recal l -we-need-to-come-

cl ean/

8 Bens i nger, K., & Vartabedi an, R. (2010, October 29). Toyota Kept Is s ue Si l ent, Laws ui t Says . Los Angeles Times.

Retri eved from http://arti cl es .l ati mes .com/pri nt/2010/oct/29/busines s/l a-fi-toyota-s uit-20101029

3

One month later on August 28, 2009, outside of San Diego, California Highway Patrol Officer

Mark Saylor was driving with his family to his daughter’s soccer practice when a Toyota

manufactured Lexus ES350 he occupied began to race uncontrollably.9

With a faulty accelerator pedal, the Lexus sped out of control on the highway at over 125 miles

per hour. The experience was captured on a 911 call in which Saylor tells the operator, “ The

acceleration is stuck.” Moments later Saylor, his wife, brother in law and daughter were

engulfed in a fiery crash. The family burned alive and died in one of Toyota’s mos t luxurious

brands.10

Federal Highway Report and Faulty Throttle Systems

After the death of Mark Saylor, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated

the crash in a report dated September 30, 2009.11 (See report copy in appendix) The report

confirmed the Lexus’ high speed and documented that the rear left caliper and rotor of the

braking system showed signs of endured unsuccessful braking.12

The safety report also noted that the push button ignition start system did not have a visible

emergency device, stating “there was no ignition key that could be mechanically actuated to

instantaneously disconnect electrical power to the engine.”13

In many modern cars, such as those manufactured by Toyota, electronic throttle systems have

replaced cable and mechanical connections.14 Instead of a cable connecting the acceleration 9 Brennan, R. (2009, December 10). Lexus Cras h: An Avoi dabl e Tragedy. Retri eved from

http://www.autobl og.com/2009/12/10/toyota -tragedy-s ayl or-fami l y/

10 Dougl as , D., & Fl etcher, M., supra note 2.

11 REPORT: Vehi cl e and Cras h Si te Ins pecti on of 2009 Lexus ES-350 ; DP09001; Bi l l Col lins ; NHTSA; September 30,

2009

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Motaval l i , J. (2010, February 5). The Dozens of Computers that Make Modern Cars Go. New York Times.

Retri eved from http://www.nyti mes .com/2010/02/05/technol ogy/05el ectroni cs .html

See al s o Fi nch, J. (2010). Toyota Sudden Accel erati on: A Cas e Study for the Nati onal Hi ghway Traffi c Safety

Admi ni s trati on - Recal l s for Change. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 22(4), 481-481. Retri eved from

http://l awecommons .l uc.edu/cgi /vi ewcontent.cgi ?arti cl e=1055&co ntext=l cl r

4

pedal to the throttle, an electronic throttle is connected to a sensor in the acceleration pedal.

The sensor sends a signal to the control unit, and then relays a command to the throttle body

to open the throttle.15 A breakdown of the electronic throttle may be caused by random and

intermittent electronic faults or a programming error.16

Dr. David Gilbert, a professor of automatic technology, later stated in 2010, the sudden

acceleration experienced by drivers could be caused by defects in Toyota’s electronic throttle

controls.17

Hidden Complaints

During a 2010 Congressional investigation of Toyota, it was discovered that the Toyota Motor

Corporation had received over 5,264 complaints regarding sudden acceleration in its vehicles

since 2000.18

In 2006 Toyota had repurchased a Lexus IS 250 from a man in Camden, Arkansas after his

daughter reported sudden acceleration problems. The vehicle was resold in Florida.19

Sandra Reech, who owned a 2008 Tacoma said she was driving on a highway in Pennsylvania

when her pedal became stuck. Reech stated, “I was careening down the highway at well over

100 miles per hour. I was standing on the brake and it wouldn’t stop.”20

The Emails

In an internal email dated January 16, 2010 7:05 pm, Irv Miller, a Toyota group Vice President,

wrote,

“I hate to break this to you but WE HAVE a tendency for MECHANICAL failures in

accelerator pedals of a certain manufacturer on certain models. We are not

protecting the customer by keeping this quiet. The time to hide on this one is over.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Gi l bert, D. W., PhD. (2010, February 21). Toyota Electronic Throttle Control Investigation (Rep.). Retri eved

http://www.s afetyres earch.net/s i tes /defaul t/fi l es /prel i mi nary_report022110.pdf

18 Bens i nger, K., & Vartabedi an, R., s upra note 8.

19 Id.

20 Vl as i c, B., & Bunkl ey, N, s upra note 5.

5

We need to come clean…”21 (See Appendix for actual email)

The email was in response to an email sent by Toyota executive Katsuhiko Koganei on the same

day (01/16/2010) at 11:55am which read,

“…I have talked with you one the phone, we should not mention about the

mechanical failures of acc. petal, because we have not clarified the real cause of the

sticking pedal formally, and the remedy for the matter has not been confirmed.

I talked over this matter with Ryo-san, KC Kirimoto-san, and Doi-san, and all of them

are concerned (that) the comment (regarding) mechanical failures might raise

(a sense of) uneasiness of customers.”22 (See Appendix)

Employees were warned to leave off executive names from emails related to the mechanical

failures and mark the emails “secret.”

The Law

Under United States federal law, each automaker selling a new vehicle in the United States is

required to provide a certificate indicating that every vehicle is compliant with current federal

safety standards.23 It is illegal to sell noncompliant vehicles. (See actual laws in Appendix)

Should a manufacturer become aware of a safety defect after the vehicle is sold to the

consumer, the manufacturer must “immediately” notify the National Highway Safety

Administration, the respective dealer and repurchase the vehicle or provide a remedy f or the

defect or noncompliance.24

Once a vehicle has been sold to a consumer, the manufacturer has a duty to notify the NHTSA

within five days after determining the existence of a defect in the vehicle.25

Preet Bharara, a US attorney for the Southern District of New York stated regarding Toyota and

the law, “Companies that make (and sell) inherently dangerous products must be maximally

21 Toyota Emai l s : New York Ti mes Graphi cs . (2010, Apri l 8). Retri eved from

http://graphi cs 8.nyti mes .com/packages /pdf/bus i nes s /201004080 -TOYOTA.pdf

22 Id.

23 49 U.S.C. § 30115 (2010). See al s o Fi nch, J., supra note 14, p. 486 for paraphrasing and di s cuss ion of l egal

res pons i bi liti es of vehi cl e manufacturers .

24 49 U.S.C. § 30116 (2010).

25 49 C.F.R § 573.6 (2010).

6

transparent.”26

After a 2010 vehicle recall, Toyota submitted “inaccurate timelines” to federal authoritie s and

Congress, giving the appearance that Toyota had immediately acted upon the accelerator

problems and mechanical defects.27

On March 19, 2014, after a federal investigation, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., announced at

a Justice Department news conference, “Rather than promptly disclosing and correcting safety

issues about which they were aware, Toyota made misleading publ ic statements to consumers

and gave inaccurate facts to members of Congress.” 28

Prosecutors noted that Toyota’s cover up of mechanical failures (as evidenced by emails),

led to foreseeable unnecessary deaths. In a settlement agreement with the federal

government, Toyota was fined $1.2 billion.29

Emails as Legal Evidence

Emails used within a trial can be more powerful than witness testimony. If a witness’

recollection or memory of events is incons istent with an email, the testimony maybe viewed as

irrelevant or demonstrate that the witness is lying.30

Joshua Hockberg, a former prosecutor states, “Prosecutors often make emails the centerpiece

of evidence in trial. Email is very stark; it’s something you put on the screen in front of the jury

and center your whole case around that language.”31

Emails such as those within the Toyota case may be admitted into evidence under the self-

authenticating rule. Under the Federal Rule of Evidence 902 (7), documents are considered self-

authenticating when there is “[an] inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting to have been affixed

26 Dougl as , D., & Fl etcher, M., supra note 2.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Mermel s tei n, M., & Hi l l , C. (2015, Augus t 1). Us i ng Emai l as Evi dence at Tri al . California Lawyer.

31 Lars on, E., & Kol ker, C. (2008, June 21). Bear Stearns Defendants Showed Di s regard for Emai l Ri s ks . Retri eved

from http://www.bl oomberg.com/apps /news ?pi d=news archi ve&s i d=aFCLTwIuFqM4

7

in the course of business and indicating origi n, ownership, or control.” 32

Emails can also be admitted as legal evidence under the business exceptions rule to hearsay,

Federal Rule of Evidence 803 (6). Emails meet the following conditions of the rule: (1) the

writing was made in the regular course of business, (2) it must have been made at or near the

time of the act, condition, or event it describes, (3) a qualified witness testifies to the identity of

the record and how it was prepared, and (4) the method and time of preparation of the record

were such as to indicate its trustworthines s. (Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).33

Former U.S. attorney Matthew Orwig commented, in a similar case related to the collapse of

investment firm Bear Stearns , "People think once an email is deleted, it's gone. It's not. It

becomes invisible, but not gone. It can be retrieved at a later point.” In white-collar criminal

cases, “prosecutors focus on the defendant's intent, what was in his head when the conduct

was going on...email more than any other mechanism for communication, captures that."34

In 2014, in addition to the $1.2 billion federal fine, the Toyota Motor Corporation faced over

400 wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits.

Questions

1. Why was Toyota one of the most successful car brands in the world? What role did trust play

in Toyota’s success?

2. Based on federal law, when should Toyota have contacted the NHSA, dealers and consumers

in the United States?

3. Why were the 5, 264 complaints hidden?

4. What role did the throttle design system potentially play in the sudden acceleration? What

steps could engineers have taken to avert the defects before the vehicles were put on the

market?

5. Why weren’t Toyota vehicles compliant with federal laws?

32 See al s o Mermel s tei n, M., & Hi l l , C., s upra note 30.

33 Id.

34 Lars on, E., & Kol ker, C., supra note 31.

8

6. Why did the Justice Department impose a $1.2 billion fine on Toyota?

7. Why are emails legal evidence? What are the laws that facilitate their admission to the

courts?

8. As part of the leadership of Toyota, what other choices could Irv Miller and Katsuhiko

Koganei made? Why?

9. What impact do you think Toyota’s emails will have on the 400 wrongful death and personal

injury lawsuits? Why?

See Appendix for actual emails, the National Highway Safety Administration report, and laws

governing the responsibilities of manufacturers.

49 U.S.C.  United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 49 ­ TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE VI ­ MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS PART A ­ GENERAL CHAPTER 301 ­ MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY SUBCHAPTER II ­ STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE Sec. 30115 ­ Certification of compliance From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§30115. Certification of compliance (a) IN GENERAL.—A manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment

shall certify to the distributor or dealer at delivery that the vehicle or equipment complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under this chapter. A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Certification of a vehicle must be shown by a label or tag permanently fixed to the vehicle. Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. (b) CERTIFICATION LABEL.—In the case of the certification label affixed by an intermediate or final

stage manufacturer of a motor vehicle built in more than 1 stage, each intermediate or final stage manufacturer shall certify with respect to each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard—

(1) that it has complied with the specifications set forth in the compliance documentation provided by the incomplete motor vehicle manufacturer in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary; or (2) that it has elected to assume responsibility for compliance with that standard.

If the intermediate or final stage manufacturer elects to assume responsibility for compliance with the standard covered by the documentation provided by an incomplete motor vehicle manufacturer, the intermediate or final stage manufacturer shall notify the incomplete motor vehicle manufacturer in writing within a reasonable time of affixing the certification label. A violation of this subsection shall not be subject to a civil penalty under section 30165. (Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 947; Pub. L. 106–414, §9, Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1805.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

30115 15:1397(a)(1)(C), (E) (related to 15:1403).

Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, §108(a) (1)(C), (E) (related to §114), 80 Stat. 722; Oct. 27, 1974, Pub. L. 93–492, §103(a)(1)(A), (2)(B), 88 Stat. 1477, 1478.

  15:1403. Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, §114, 80 Stat. 726.

The words “fail to issue a certificate required by section 1403 of this title” in 15:1397(a)(1)(C) and the text of 15:1397(a)(1)(E) (related to 15:1403) are omitted as surplus. The word “certify” is substituted for “furnish . . . the certification” in 15:1403 to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “the time of” and “of such

vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor” are omitted as surplus. The words “prescribed under this chapter” are added for clarity. The word “reasonable” is substituted for “due” in 15:1397(a)(1)(C) for consistency in the revised title. The words “to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards” are omitted because of the restatement. The words “shown by” are substituted for “in the form of” in 15:1403 for clarity.

AMENDMENTS 2000—Pub. L. 106–414 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec.

(b).

FOLLOW­UP REPORT Pub. L. 106–414, §16, Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1808, provided that: “One year after the date of the

enactment of this Act [Nov. 1, 2000], the Secretary of Transportation shall report to the Congress on the implementation of the amendments made by this Act [see Short Title of 2000 Amendment note set out under section 30101 of this title] and any recommendations for additional amendments for consumer safety.”

49 U.S.C.  United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 49 ­ TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE VI ­ MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS PART A ­ GENERAL CHAPTER 301 ­ MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY SUBCHAPTER II ­ STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE Sec. 30116 ­ Defects and noncompliance found before sale to purchaser From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§30116. Defects and noncompliance found before sale to purchaser (a) ACTIONS REQUIRED OF MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS.—If, after a manufacturer or distributor

sells a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to a distributor or dealer and before the distributor or dealer sells the vehicle or equipment, it is decided that the vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under this chapter—

(1) the manufacturer or distributor immediately shall repurchase the vehicle or equipment at the price paid by the distributor or dealer, plus transportation charges and reasonable reimbursement of at least one percent a month of the price paid prorated from the date of notice of noncompliance or defect to the date of repurchase; or (2) if a vehicle, the manufacturer or distributor immediately shall give to the distributor or

dealer at the manufacturer's or distributor's own expense, the part or equipment needed to make the vehicle comply with the standards or correct the defect.

(b) DISTRIBUTOR OR DEALER INSTALLATION.—The distributor or dealer shall install the part or equipment referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this section. If the distributor or dealer installs the part or equipment with reasonable diligence after it is received, the manufacturer shall reimburse the distributor or dealer for the reasonable value of the installation and a reasonable reimbursement of at least one percent a month of the manufacturer's or distributor's selling price prorated from the date of notice of noncompliance or defect to the date the motor vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under this chapter or the defect is corrected. (c) ESTABLISHING AMOUNT DUE AND CIVIL ACTIONS.—The parties shall establish the value of

installation and the amount of reimbursement under this section. If the parties do not agree, or if a manufacturer or distributor refuses to comply with subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the distributor or dealer purchasing the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment may bring a civil action. The action may be brought in a United States district court for the judicial district in which the manufacturer or distributor resides, is found, or has an agent, to recover damages, court costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee. An action under this section must be brought not later than 3 years after the claim accrues. (Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 947.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

30116(a) 15:1400(a) (less (2) (last 97 words)).

Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, §111, 80 Stat. 724.

30116(b) 15:1400(a)(2) (last 97 words). 30116(c) 15:1400(b), (c).

In subsection (a)(1), the words “as the case may be”, “from such distributor or dealer”, “all . . . involved”, and “by the manufacturer or distributor” are omitted as surplus. In subsection (a)(2), the words “manufacturer's or distributor's” are substituted for “his” for clarity. The

words “or parts” are omitted because of 1:1. The words “the vehicle comply with the standards or correct the defect” are substituted for “conforming” for clarity. In subsection (b), the words “the part or equipment referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this section” are

added because of the restatement. The words “If the distributor or dealer installs the part or equipment with reasonable diligence after it is received, the manufacturer shall reimburse the distributor or dealer” are substituted for “and for the installation involved the manufacturer shall reimburse such distributor or dealer . . . Provided, however, That the distributor or dealer proceeds with reasonable diligence with the installation after the required part, parts or equipment are received” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “on or in such vehicle” are omitted as surplus. The words “notice of noncompliance or defect” are substituted for “notice of such nonconformance”, and the words “complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under this chapter or the defect is corrected” are substituted for “is brought into conformance with applicable Federal standards”, to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency in the revised title. In subsection (c), the words “the amount of reimbursement” are substituted for “such reasonable

reimbursements” for clarity and because of the restatement. The words “by mutual agreement” are omitted as surplus. The words “If the parties do not agree” are substituted for “or failing such agreement”, and the words “by the court pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section” are omitted, because of the restatement. The words “the requirements of”, “then”, “as the case may be”, and “without respect to the amount in controversy” are omitted as surplus. The words “civil action” are substituted for “suit” because of rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 App. U.S.C.). The words “against such manufacturer or distributor” are omitted as surplus. The word “judicial” is added for consistency. The words “to recover damages, court costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee” are substituted for “and shall recover the damage by him sustained, as well as all court costs plus reasonable attorneys’ fees”, and the words “must be brought” are substituted for “shall be forever barred unless commenced”, to eliminate unnecessary words. The word “claim” is substituted for “cause of action” for consistency.

§ 573.6

Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 ­ Transportation

Volume: 7 Date: 2014­10­01 Original Date: 2014­10­01 Title: Section 573.6 ­ Defect and noncompliance information report. Context: Title 49 ­ Transportation. Subtitle B ­ Other Regulations Relating to Transportation (Continued). CHAPTER V ­ NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CONTINUED). PART 573 ­ DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS.

Defect and noncompliance information report.

(a) Each manufacturer shall furnish a report to the NHTSA for each defect in his vehicles or in his items of original or replacement equipment that he or the Administrator determines to be related to motor vehicle safety, and for each noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard in such vehicles or items of equipment which either he or the Administrator determines to exist.

(b) Each report shall be submitted not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle or item of equipment has been determined to be safety related, or a noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard has been determined to exist. At a minimum, information required by paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (5) of this section shall be submitted in the initial report. The remainder of the information required by paragraph (c) of this section that is not available within the five­day period shall be submitted within 5 working days after the manufacturer has confirmed the accuracy of the information. In addition, each manufacturer shall amend information required by paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (8)(i) or (ii) within 5 working days after it has new information that updates or corrects information that was previously reported. Each manufacturer submitting new information relative to a previously submitted report shall refer to the recall campaign number when a number has been assigned by the NHTSA.

(c) Each manufacturer shall include in each report the information specified below.

(1) The manufacturer's name: The full corporate or individual name of the fabricating manufacturer and any brand name or trademark owner of the vehicle or item of equipment shall be spelled out, except that such abbreviations as “Co.” or “Inc.”, and their foreign equivalents, and the first and middle initials of individuals, may be used. In the case of a defect or noncompliance decided to exist in an imported vehicle or item of equipment, the agency designated by the fabricating manufacturer pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 30164(a) shall be also stated. If the fabricating manufacturer is a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for compliance with all requirements of this part the name of the controlling corporation may be used.

(2) Identification of the vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment potentially containing the defect or noncompliance, including a description of the manufacturer's basis for its determination of the recall population and a description of how the vehicles or items of equipment to be recalled differ from similar vehicles or items of equipment that the manufacturer has not included in the recall.

(i) In the case of passenger cars, the identification shall be by the make, line, model year, the inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacture, and any other information necessary to describe the vehicles.

(ii) In the case of vehicles other than passenger cars, the identification shall be by body style or type, inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacture and any other information necessary to describe the vehicles, such as GVWR or class for trucks, displacement (cc) for motorcycles, and number of passengers for buses.

(iii) In the case of items of motor vehicle equipment, the identification shall be by the generic name of the component (tires, child seating systems, axles, etc.), part number (for tires, a range of tire identification numbers, as required by 49 CFR 574.5), size and function if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacture if available, brand (or trade) name, model name, model

number, as applicable, and any other information necessary to describe the items.

(iv) In the case of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment in which the component that contains the defect or noncompliance was manufactured by a different manufacturer from the reporting manufacturer, the reporting manufacturer shall identify the component and, if known, the component's country of origin ( i.e.  final place of manufacture or assembly), the manufacturer and/or assembler of the component by name, business address, and business telephone number. If the reporting manufacturer does not know the identity of the manufacturer of the component, it shall identify the entity from which it was obtained. If at the time of submission of the initial report, the reporting manufacturer does not know the country of origin of the component, the manufacturer shall ascertain the country of origin and submit a supplemental report with that information once it becomes available.

(v) In the case of items of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of the equipment shall identify by name, business address, and business telephone number every manufacturer that purchases the defective or noncomplying component for use or installation in new motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment.

(3) The total number of vehicles or items of equipment potentially containing the defect or noncompliance, and where available the number of vehicles or items of equipment in each group identified pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(4) The percentage of vehicles or items of equipment specified pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section estimated to actually contain the defect or noncompliance.

(5) A description of the defect or noncompliance, including both a brief summary and a detailed description, with graphic aids as necessary, of the nature and physical location (if applicable) of the defect or noncompliance. In addition, the manufacturer shall identify and describe the risk to motor vehicle safety reasonably related to the defect or noncompliance consistent with its evaluation of risk required by 49 CFR 577.5(f).

(6) In the case of a defect, a chronology of all principal events that were the basis for the determination that the defect related to motor vehicle safety, including a summary of all warranty claims, field or service reports, and other information, with their dates of receipt.

(7) In the case of a noncompliance, the test results and other information that the manufacturer considered in determining the existence of the noncompliance. The manufacturer shall identify the date of each test and observation that indicated that a noncompliance might or did exist.

(8)(i) A description of the manufacturer's program for remedying the defect or noncompliance. This program shall include a plan for reimbursing an owner or purchaser who incurred costs to obtain a remedy for the problem addressed by the recall within a reasonable time in advance of the manufacturer's notification of owners, purchasers and dealers, in accordance with § 573.13 of this part. A manufacturer's plan may incorporate by reference a general reimbursement plan it previously submitted to NHTSA, together with information specific to the individual recall. Information required by § 573.13 that is not in a general reimbursement plan shall be submitted in the manufacturer's report to NHTSA under this section. If a manufacturer submits one or more general reimbursement plans, the manufacturer shall update each plan every two years, in accordance with § 573.13. The manufacturer's remedy program and reimbursement plans will be available for inspection by the public at NHTSA headquarters.

(ii) The estimated date(s) on which it will begin sending notifications to owners, and to dealers and distributors, that there is a safety­related defect or noncompliance and that a remedy without charge will be available to owners, and the estimated date(s) on which it will complete such notifications (if different from the beginning date). If a manufacturer subsequently becomes aware that either the beginning or the completion dates reported to the agency for any of the notifications will be delayed by more than two weeks, it shall promptly advise the agency of the delay and the reasons therefore, 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 30­day 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 30­day period.

(9) In the case of a remedy program involving the replacement of tires, the manufacturer's program for remedying the defect or noncompliance shall:

(i) Address how the manufacturer will assure that the entities replacing the tires are aware of the legal requirements related to recalls of tires established by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and regulations thereunder. At a minimum, the manufacturer shall notify its owned stores and/or distributors, as well as all independent outlets that are authorized to replace the tires that are the subject of the recall, annually or for each individual recall that the manufacturer conducts, about the ban on the sale of new defective or noncompliant tires (49 CFR 573.11); the prohibition on the sale of new and used defective and noncompliant tires (49 CFR 573.12); and the duty to notify NHTSA of any sale of a new or used recalled tire for use on a motor vehicle (49 CFR 573.10). For tire outlets that are manufacturer­owned or otherwise subject to the control of the manufacturer, the manufacturer shall also provide directions to comply with these statutory provisions and the regulations thereunder.

(ii) Address how the manufacturer will prevent, to the extent reasonably within its control, the recalled tires from being resold for installation on a motor vehicle. At a minimum, the manufacturer shall include the following information, to be furnished to each tire outlet that it owns, or that is authorized to replace tires that are recalled, either annually or for each individual recall the manufacturer conducts:

(A) Written directions to manufacturer­owned and other manufacturer­controlled outlets to alter the recalled tires permanently so that they cannot be used on vehicles. These shall include instructions on the means to render recalled tires unsuitable for resale for installation on motor vehicles and instructions to perform the incapacitation of each recalled tire, with the exception of any tires that are returned to the manufacturer pursuant to a testing program, within 24 hours of receipt of the recalled tire at the outlet. If the manufacturer has a testing program for recalled tires, these directions shall also include criteria for selecting recalled tires for testing and instructions for labeling those tires and returning them promptly to the manufacturer for testing.

(B) Written guidance to all other outlets which are authorized to replace the recalled tires on how to alter the recalled tires promptly and permanently so that they cannot be used on vehicles.

(C) A requirement that manufacturer­owned and other manufacturer­controlled outlets report to the manufacturer, either on a monthly basis or within 30 days of the deviation, the number of recalled tires removed from vehicles by the outlet that have not been rendered unsuitable for resale for installation on a motor vehicle within the specified time frame (other than those returned for testing) and describe any such failure to act in accordance with the manufacturer's plan;

(iii) Address how the manufacturer will limit, to the extent reasonably within its control, the disposal of the recalled tires in landfills and, instead, channel them into a category of positive reuse (shredding, crumbling, recycling, and recovery) or another alternative beneficial non­vehicular use. At a minimum, the manufacturer shall include the following information, to be furnished to each tire outlet that it owns or that is authorized to replace tires that are recalled, either annually or for each individual recall that the manufacturer conducts:

(A)(1) Written directions that require manufacturer­owned and other manufacturer­controlled outlets either:

( i) To ship recalled tires to one or more locations designated by the manufacturer as part of the program or allow the manufacturer to collect and dispose of the recalled tires; or

( ii) To ship recalled tires to a location of their own choosing, provided that they comply with applicable state and local laws and regulations regarding disposal of tires.

(2) Under option (c)(9)(iii)(A)(1)( ii) of this section, the directions must also include further direction and guidance on how to limit the disposal of recalled tires in landfills and, instead, channel them into a category of positive reuse (shredding, crumbling, recycling, and recovery) or another alternative

beneficial non­vehicular use.

(B)(1) Written guidance that authorizes all other outlets that are authorized to replace the recalled tires either:

( i) To ship recalled tires to one or more locations designated by the manufacturer or allow the manufacturer to collect and dispose of the recalled tires; or

( ii) To ship recalled tires to a location of their own choosing, provided that they comply with applicable state and local laws and regulations regarding disposal of tires.

(2) Under option (c)(9)(iii)(B)(1)( ii) of this section, the manufacturer must also include further guidance on how to limit the disposal of recalled tires in landfills and, instead, channel them into a category of positive reuse (shredding, crumbling, recycling, and recovery) or another alternative beneficial non­vehicular use.

(C) A requirement that manufacturer­owned and other manufacturer­controlled outlets report to the manufacturer, on a monthly basis or within 30 days of the deviation, the number of recalled tires disposed of in violation of applicable state and local laws and regulations, and describe any such failure to act in accordance with the manufacturer's plan; and

(D) A description of the manufacturer's program for disposing of the recalled tires that are returned to the manufacturer or collected by the manufacturer from the retail outlets, including, at a minimum, statements that the returned tires will be disposed of in compliance with applicable state and local laws and regulations regarding disposal of tires, and will be channeled, insofar as possible, into a category of positive reuse (shredding, crumbling, recycling and recovery) or another alternative beneficial non­vehicular use, instead of being disposed of in landfills.

(iv) To the extent that the manufacturer wishes to limit the frequency of shipments of recalled tires, it must specify both a minimum time period and a minimum weight for the shipments and provide that shipments may be made at whichever minimum occurs first.

(v) Written directions required under this paragraph to be furnished to a manufacturer­owned or controlled outlet shall be sent to the person in charge of each outlet by first­class mail or by electronic means, such as FAX transmissions or e­mail, with further instructions to notify all employees of the outlet who are involved with removal, rendering unsuitable for use, or disposition of recalled tires of the applicable requirements and procedures.

(vi) Manufacturers must implement the plans for disposition of recalled tires that they file with NHTSA pursuant to this paragraph. The failure of a manufacturer to implement its plan in accordance with its terms constitutes a violation of the Safety Act.

(10) A representative copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications that relate directly to the defect or noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer or purchaser. These copies shall be submitted to NHTSA's Recall Management Division (NVS­215) (RMD), not later than 5 days after they are initially sent to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or purchasers. Submission shall be made pursuant to § 573.9 of this part.

(11) The manufacturer's campaign number, if not identical to the identification number assigned by NHTSA.

[43 FR 60169, Dec. 26, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 20437, Apr. 5, 1979; 48 FR 44081, Sept. 27, 1983; 60 FR 17268, Apr. 5, 1995; 61 FR 278, Jan. 4, 1996. Redesignated at 67 FR 45872, July 10, 2002, as amended at 67 FR 64063, Oct. 17, 2002; 69 FR 34959, June 23, 2004; 69 FR 50084, Aug. 13, 2004; 70 FR 38814, July 6, 2005; 72 FR 32016, June 11, 2007; 74 FR 47757, Sept. 17, 2009; 78 FR 51421, Aug. 20, 2013; 79 FR 43677, July 28, 2014]