Denial of Petition, 3801-3802 [E8-951]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone: 1–800–647–5527.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this proposed collection of
information. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be
obtained at no charge from Laurence
Long, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Rm. 48–220, NVS 211,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Long’s
telephone number is (202) 366–6281.
Please identify the relevant collection
of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed
collection of information to OMB for
approval, it must first publish a
document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and
otherwise consult with members of the
public and affected agencies concerning
each proposed collection of information.
The OMB has promulgated regulations
describing what must be included in
such a document. Under OMB’s
regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), an
agency must ask for public comment on
the following:
(i) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(iv) How to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
In compliance with these
requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed
collections of information:
Title: Consumer Complaint
Information.
OMB Control Number: 2127–0008.
Affected Public: Individuals and
households.
Abstract: Pursuant to Chapter 301 of
Title 49 of the United States Code,
manufacturers of motor vehicles and
items of motor vehicle equipment must
notify owners and provide a free remedy
(i.e., a recall) when it has been
determined that a safety-related defect
exists in the manufacturer’s product.
NHTSA investigates possible safety
defects and may order recalls. NHTSA
solicits information from vehicle
owners, which is used to identify and
evaluate possible safety-related defects
and provide evidence of the existence of
such defects.
Consumer complaint information
takes the form of a Vehicle Owner’s
Questionnaire (VOQ), which is a paper,
self-addressed mailer that consumers
complete. This mailer contains owner
information, product information, failed
component information, and incident
information. It may also take the form of
an electronic VOQ containing the same
information as identified above, which
can be submitted via NHTSA’s Internet
Web site or by calling the Department of
Transportation’s Auto Safety Hotline.
Or, it may take the form of a consumer
letter. All consumer complaint
information, in addition to other sources
of available information, is entered into
the agency’s database and reviewed by
NHTSA staff to determine whether a
safety-related defect trend or
catastrophic failure is developing that
would warrant the opening of a safety
defect investigation.
Estimated Annual Burden: 8,657
hours.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
34,626.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3801
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Kathleen Demeter,
Director, Office of Defects Investigation.
[FR Doc. E8–990 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Denial of Petition
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation.
AGENCY:
Denial of petition for
rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance
order, and denial of petition for hearing
on notification and remedy of a safety
related defect.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the
reasons for the denials of two petitions
submitted by Mr. Robin R. Harrill
(petitioner). The first petition requested
that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) order Polaris
Industries, Inc. (Polaris) to assume all
owner costs incurred to replace
defective third gear assemblies on
certain model year 1999 through 2001
Victory V92 motorcycles it
manufactured. The second petition
requested the NHTSA hold a hearing
concerning the company’s alleged
failure to remedy the defective third
gear assemblies on those motorcycles.
Both petitions are denied as moot.
Polaris has, since the filing of this
petition, notified the affected
motorcycle owners of the defect, and
has made a free remedy available to
those owners, including the petitioner,
and has reimbursed all owners who had
the recall repair work completed prior
to the initiation of the recall.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer T. Timian, Recall Management
Division (NVS–215), Office of Defects
Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366–0209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
3802
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
On August 4, 2006, Polaris filed a
defect information report (06V–298)
with NHTSA, notifying it that some of
its 2001 Victory V92 motorcycles and
some of its 1999–2000 Victory V92
motorcycles that received a
transmission replacement last built in
2001 contained a safety-related defect.
According to Polaris, under certain
conditions, these motorcycles could
experience third gear failures that could
result in a lock-up of the transmission.
This, in turn, could cause a loss of
control and a crash. Polaris reported
that it was planning to install a rear
sprocket damper assembly to correct for
the possible third gear failures, but that
the schedule for implementing the
remedy campaign was still under
development. Subsequently, on
November 22, 2006, Polaris issued a
letter to the affected owners notifying
them of the defect and stating that
limited numbers of kits needed to repair
the motorcycles (referred to as ‘‘Rear
Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits’’) were
expected to be distributed the week of
December 18, 2006. Owners were
instructed to contact Victory dealers to
schedule repair appointments.
During the final stages of testing,
however, Polaris found that the remedy
kits were not sufficient to address the
risk of third gear failures, and therefore
additional work was needed to develop
a better remedy. Polaris advised the
agency of its finding and the resulting
delay in delivery of remedy kits in
January, 2007.
On March 8, 2007, NHTSA received a
package containing two petitions from
Robin R. Harrill. The first petition,
captioned a ‘‘Petition for Rulemaking,
Defect, and Noncompliance Order,’’
requested that NHTSA order Polaris to
assume all costs motorcycle owners may
have incurred to replace the third gear
assemblies on the affected motorcycles.
The second petition, captioned a
‘‘Petition for Hearing on Notification
and Remedy of Defects,’’ requested a
hearing to address Polaris’s alleged
failure to meet its obligation to remedy
those defective assemblies.
The crux of both petitions is that
Polaris has been unreasonably slow in
making the Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive
Kits available to owners and dealers. In
support of his petitions, Mr. Harrill
provided a timeline of events
concerning the recall, an account of
certain conversations he had with
various Polaris personnel, and
summaries of various communications
Polaris had issued as to the status and
availability of the kits.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
In the meantime, and at the agency’s
request, Polaris prepared another
notification letter for owners. On or
about April 20, 2007, NHTSA received
a draft of this letter together with an
amended defect information report.
Polaris stated in its report that this
second owner notification mailing was
to start April 30, 2007. Polaris further
reported that it was going to
simultaneously publish on its Web site
a reminder notification to dealers about
the recall, together with a parts
availability date. Both of these actions
took place.
In mid-May, 2007, the remedy kits for
the affected motorcycles were made
available to dealers.
Decision
The filing and disposition
requirements for petitions for
rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance
orders, are found in 49 CFR part 552.
The stated scope of part 552 is to,
among other things, allow interested
persons to request the agency ‘‘make a
decision that a motor vehicle * * *
contains a defect which relates to motor
vehicle safety.’’ 49 CFR 552.1. The
stated scope of Part 552 does not
include ordering manufacturers to
reimburse owners for their costs in
remedying defective motor vehicles, or
taking any other action related to
repairing or replacing defective motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.
Here, Polaris has already admitted
that its vehicles have a defect that
relates to motor vehicle safety.
Therefore, the issue of whether the
Polaris motorcycles in question have a
safety-related defect has been resolved,
and so any agency determination
mirroring the manufacturer’s decision
would be meaningless.
The filing and disposition
requirements for petitions for hearings
on notification and remedy of defects,
are found in 49 CFR part 557. One of the
stated purposes of part 557 is to enable
NHTSA to respond to petitions for
hearings on whether a manufacturer has
reasonably met its obligation to remedy
a safety-related defect identified in its
product. 49 CFR 557.2. Pursuant to 49
CFR 557.8, a manufacturer can be
ordered to take certain actions to ensure
its compliance with the recall
requirements. One such action could be
requiring the manufacturer to reimburse
owners’ costs for their independent
repairing or replacing of equipment in
order to fix a defect.
In deciding whether to grant
petitioner’s second petition, we have
taken into consideration the nature of
his complaint and the seriousness of the
alleged breach of Polaris’s obligation to
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
remedy. We have also considered that
there have been approximately eight
owner complaints to NHTSA (including
one the petitioner filed) about the delays
in repair due to the lack of availability
of the Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits
at local dealerships.
Based on our consideration of these
factors, we have determined that any
hearing related to the reasonableness of
the remedy would be moot because the
alleged problem—delays in repair kits
needed to fix the transmission defect—
has been resolved. Polaris has delivered
the kits to its dealers and all owners
have been notified of the defect.1
For all of the reasons above, this
petition is denied. This decision does
not, of course, prevent the agency from
taking future action if warranted.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 15, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8–951 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;
Notice of Delays in Processing of
Special Permits Applications
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: List of Applications Delayed
more than 180 days.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list
of special permit applications that have
been in process for 180 days or more.
The reason(s) for delay and the expected
completion date for action on each
application is provided in association
with each identified application.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Special Permits
and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, East
Building, PHH–30, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
4535.
1 In phone calls with the agency, the petitioner
reported that he had received a call from his dealer
letting him know the repair kits had arrived and
offering to schedule an appointment for a repair. He
also reported that he no longer owns a motorcycle
involved in the remedy campaign addressed by this
notice.
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3801-3802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-951]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Petition
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance
order, and denial of petition for hearing on notification and remedy of
a safety related defect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denials of two
petitions submitted by Mr. Robin R. Harrill (petitioner). The first
petition requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) order Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris) to
assume all owner costs incurred to replace defective third gear
assemblies on certain model year 1999 through 2001 Victory V92
motorcycles it manufactured. The second petition requested the NHTSA
hold a hearing concerning the company's alleged failure to remedy the
defective third gear assemblies on those motorcycles. Both petitions
are denied as moot. Polaris has, since the filing of this petition,
notified the affected motorcycle owners of the defect, and has made a
free remedy available to those owners, including the petitioner, and
has reimbursed all owners who had the recall repair work completed
prior to the initiation of the recall.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer T. Timian, Recall Management
Division (NVS-215), Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-0209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 3802]]
Background
On August 4, 2006, Polaris filed a defect information report (06V-
298) with NHTSA, notifying it that some of its 2001 Victory V92
motorcycles and some of its 1999-2000 Victory V92 motorcycles that
received a transmission replacement last built in 2001 contained a
safety-related defect. According to Polaris, under certain conditions,
these motorcycles could experience third gear failures that could
result in a lock-up of the transmission. This, in turn, could cause a
loss of control and a crash. Polaris reported that it was planning to
install a rear sprocket damper assembly to correct for the possible
third gear failures, but that the schedule for implementing the remedy
campaign was still under development. Subsequently, on November 22,
2006, Polaris issued a letter to the affected owners notifying them of
the defect and stating that limited numbers of kits needed to repair
the motorcycles (referred to as ``Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits'')
were expected to be distributed the week of December 18, 2006. Owners
were instructed to contact Victory dealers to schedule repair
appointments.
During the final stages of testing, however, Polaris found that the
remedy kits were not sufficient to address the risk of third gear
failures, and therefore additional work was needed to develop a better
remedy. Polaris advised the agency of its finding and the resulting
delay in delivery of remedy kits in January, 2007.
On March 8, 2007, NHTSA received a package containing two petitions
from Robin R. Harrill. The first petition, captioned a ``Petition for
Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Order,'' requested that NHTSA
order Polaris to assume all costs motorcycle owners may have incurred
to replace the third gear assemblies on the affected motorcycles. The
second petition, captioned a ``Petition for Hearing on Notification and
Remedy of Defects,'' requested a hearing to address Polaris's alleged
failure to meet its obligation to remedy those defective assemblies.
The crux of both petitions is that Polaris has been unreasonably
slow in making the Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits available to owners
and dealers. In support of his petitions, Mr. Harrill provided a
timeline of events concerning the recall, an account of certain
conversations he had with various Polaris personnel, and summaries of
various communications Polaris had issued as to the status and
availability of the kits.
In the meantime, and at the agency's request, Polaris prepared
another notification letter for owners. On or about April 20, 2007,
NHTSA received a draft of this letter together with an amended defect
information report. Polaris stated in its report that this second owner
notification mailing was to start April 30, 2007. Polaris further
reported that it was going to simultaneously publish on its Web site a
reminder notification to dealers about the recall, together with a
parts availability date. Both of these actions took place.
In mid-May, 2007, the remedy kits for the affected motorcycles were
made available to dealers.
Decision
The filing and disposition requirements for petitions for
rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders, are found in 49 CFR part
552. The stated scope of part 552 is to, among other things, allow
interested persons to request the agency ``make a decision that a motor
vehicle * * * contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle
safety.'' 49 CFR 552.1. The stated scope of Part 552 does not include
ordering manufacturers to reimburse owners for their costs in remedying
defective motor vehicles, or taking any other action related to
repairing or replacing defective motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment.
Here, Polaris has already admitted that its vehicles have a defect
that relates to motor vehicle safety. Therefore, the issue of whether
the Polaris motorcycles in question have a safety-related defect has
been resolved, and so any agency determination mirroring the
manufacturer's decision would be meaningless.
The filing and disposition requirements for petitions for hearings
on notification and remedy of defects, are found in 49 CFR part 557.
One of the stated purposes of part 557 is to enable NHTSA to respond to
petitions for hearings on whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its
obligation to remedy a safety-related defect identified in its product.
49 CFR 557.2. Pursuant to 49 CFR 557.8, a manufacturer can be ordered
to take certain actions to ensure its compliance with the recall
requirements. One such action could be requiring the manufacturer to
reimburse owners' costs for their independent repairing or replacing of
equipment in order to fix a defect.
In deciding whether to grant petitioner's second petition, we have
taken into consideration the nature of his complaint and the
seriousness of the alleged breach of Polaris's obligation to remedy. We
have also considered that there have been approximately eight owner
complaints to NHTSA (including one the petitioner filed) about the
delays in repair due to the lack of availability of the Rear Sprocket
Cushion Drive Kits at local dealerships.
Based on our consideration of these factors, we have determined
that any hearing related to the reasonableness of the remedy would be
moot because the alleged problem--delays in repair kits needed to fix
the transmission defect--has been resolved. Polaris has delivered the
kits to its dealers and all owners have been notified of the defect.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In phone calls with the agency, the petitioner reported that
he had received a call from his dealer letting him know the repair
kits had arrived and offering to schedule an appointment for a
repair. He also reported that he no longer owns a motorcycle
involved in the remedy campaign addressed by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of the reasons above, this petition is denied. This
decision does not, of course, prevent the agency from taking future
action if warranted.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 15, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8-951 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
