Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition and Petition for a Hearing, 43216-43218 [2012-18060]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43216
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–18077 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 12–177; RM–11665; DA 12–
1008]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Randsburg, CA
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document requests
comments on petition for rule making
filed by Sound Enterprises, proposing
the substitution of Channel 275A for
vacant Channel 271A at Randsburg,
California. The proposed channel
substitution at Randsburg
accommodates Petitioner’s hybrid
application, requesting to upgrade the
facilities for Station KSSI(FM) from
Channel 274A to Channel 271B1 at
China Lake, California. See File No.
BPH–20120314ACB. Channel 275A can
be allotted to Randsburg consistent with
the minimum distance separation
requirements of the Rules with a site
restriction 0.04 kilometers (0.03 miles)
southeast of the community. The
reference coordinates are 35–22–06 NL
and 117–39–25 WL.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before August 20, 2012, and reply
comments on or before September 4,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve the
petitioner as follows: Sound Enterprises,
c/o Richard J. Hayes, Jr., Esq., Attorney
at Law, 27 Water’s Edge Drive,
Lincolnville, Maine 04849.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jul 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
12–177, adopted June 28, 2012, and
released June 29, 2012. The full text of
this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC’s
Reference Information Center at Portals
II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractors,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–
800–378–3160 or via email
www.BCPIWEB.com. This document
does not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter
is no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules
governing permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Nazifa Sawez,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and
339.
§ 73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Randsburg, California,
is amended by removing Channel 271A
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and by adding Channel 275A at
Randsburg.
[FR Doc. 2012–17789 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 552; 557
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
and Petition for a Hearing
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition.
AGENCY:
The Center for Auto Safety
has petitioned NHTSA to open defect
investigations on Model Year (MY)
2002–2004 Ford Escape and 2001–2004
Mazda Tribute vehicles with certain
cruise control cables. The Center for
Auto Safety has also petitioned for a
hearing to address whether Ford Motor
Company (Ford) and Mazda North
American Operations (Mazda) met their
obligations to notify owners and correct
a defect in certain Ford Escape and
Mazda Tribute vehicles. The petitions to
open investigations are denied as moot
and the petitions to conduct hearings
are denied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Derek Rinehardt, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590 (Telephone: 202–366–3642).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
The Center for Auto Safety, in letters
dated July 8, 2012 and July 13, 2012,
petitioned for a Defect Order under 49
CFR Part 552 and for a Hearing on
Notification and Remedy of Defects
under 49 CFR Part 577. The petitions
relate to Ford’s recall of MY 2002–2004
Ford Escape vehicles (Recall 04V–574)
and Mazda’s recall of MY 2002–2004
Mazda Tribute vehicles (Recall 04V–
583).
In 49 CFR Part 573 Defect and
Information Reports (Part 573 Report)
filed in December 2004, Ford and
Mazda both informed NHTSA that the
inner liner of the accelerator cable in
certain Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute
vehicles could migrate out of place
during vehicle operation, and prevent
the throttle body from returning to the
idle position. Ford and Mazda said that
the safety consequence of a throttle
body not returning to the idle position
was a progressive, and in some cases
sudden increase in speed. Ford and
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Mazda notified vehicle owners of the
recalls (Recall 04V–574 and 04V–583) in
January 2005. Thereafter, on October 6,
2005, Ford released a recall update to
dealers. In that update, Ford provided
supplemental instructions on how to
remove the accelerator cable. The
instructions indicate that damage to the
speed (or cruise) control cable can result
if the accelerator cable is not properly
removed. Mazda, however, did not issue
a recall update.
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS)
asserts that Ford and Mazda failed to
notify about 319,500 Ford Escape
owners and 84,700 Mazda Tribute
owners that their vehicles’ speed (or
cruise) control cables may have been
damaged during the accelerator cable
replacements conducted in Recall 04V–
574 and Recall 04V–583. According to
CAS, these vehicles were repaired prior
to September 30, 2005. Related to this
potential damage, CAS states that Ford
and Mazda did not file Part 573 Reports
with NHTSA which would have
initiated a second recall. CAS adds that
Ford and Mazda did not file Part 573
Reports and recall the cruise control
cables. CAS claims that the cruise
control cable can fail independently of
being damaged in the course of repairs
conducted pursuant to Recall 04V–574
and Recall 04V–583.
In its July 8 petition, CAS refers to a
crash involving a MY 2002 Ford Escape
which occurred in January 2012 in
Payson, Arizona. The driver of the Ford
Escape was killed in the crash. CAS
states that the driver’s vehicle had been
repaired in January 2005, after Recall
04V–574 was announced but before the
October 2005 recall update was
released.
NHTSA has been gathering
information on the Arizona crash since
early 2012 when it first learned of it.
NHTSA obtained the police report when
it became available. In June 2012,
NHTSA contacted counsel representing
the driver’s family to obtain more
information on the crash. Independent
of CAS’s petition, NHTSA opened a
preliminary investigation (PE 12–019)
on July 17, 2012 that among other things
will encompass issues raised by the
Center for Auto Safety’s petition.
II. CAS’s Petition That NHTSA Open a
Defect Investigation Is Denied as Moot
CAS requests that NHTSA open a
defect investigation into MY 2002–2004
Ford Escapes and MY 2001–2004 Mazda
Tributes with cruise control cables of
the same design as in Recall 04V–574,
Recall 04V–583, and in the Arizona
vehicle. Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.3, any
interested person may file a petition
requesting that the Administrator
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jul 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
commence a proceeding to decide
whether to issue an order concerning
the notification and remedy of a failure
of a motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment to comply with
an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard or a defect in such vehicle or
equipment that relates to motor vehicle
safety. If NHTSA grants the petition,
NHTSA opens an investigation.
Based on the information obtained by
NHTSA prior to the filing of the CAS
petition, NHTSA opened an
investigation on July 17, 2012 that will,
among other issues, assess the scope
and remedy of Recall 04V–574
(involving certain model year 2002–
2004 Ford Escape vehicles) and Recall
04V–583 (involving certain model year
2002–2004 Mazda Tribute vehicles). In
view of the fact that NHTSA has opened
an investigation that will examine the
issues on the Ford Escape and Mazda
Tribute speed control cables, including
claims raised by CAS, the agency denies
this portion of CAS’s petition as moot.
III. CAS’s Petition for a Hearing on
Notification and Remedy of Defects Is
Denied
CAS’s petition for a hearing on
notification and remedy of defects
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 557 requests
that NHTSA hold a hearing to determine
whether Ford and Mazda reasonably
met their obligations to notify owners
and correct the defects at issue in Recall
04V–574 and Recall 04V–583. In
determining whether to hold a hearing,
the agency considers (1) The nature of
the complaint; (2) the seriousness of the
alleged breach of obligation to remedy;
(3) the existence of similar complaints;
(4) the ability of the NHTSA to resolve
the problem without holding a hearing;
and (5) other pertinent matters. 49 CFR
557.6.
We first consider the nature of the
complaint. CAS claims that Ford did not
notify owners of about 319,500 vehicles
of potential damage to speed control
cables caused by a faulty recall repair in
Recall 04V–574. CAS claims that Mazda
did not notify owners of about 84,700
vehicles of potential damage to speed
control cables caused by a faulty recall
repair in Recall 04V–583. CAS also
claims that Ford and Mazda did not file
Reports pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573
with NHTSA which would have
initiated a second recall. Finally, CAS
claims that Ford and Mazda did not file
Part 573 Reports and recall the cruise
control cable. Federal regulations
require vehicle manufacturers to submit
reports to NHTSA for each defect that
the manufacturer or the Administrator
of NHTSA determines to be related to
motor vehicle safety. 49 CFR 573.6.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43217
Issues of the nature raised by CAS will
be addressed in PE 12–019.
Second, we consider the seriousness
of the alleged breach of obligation to
remedy. If CAS’s claims are true, they
are serious. NHTSA will consider them
in PE 12–019.
Third, we consider the existence of
similar complaints. NHTSA received
complaints from consumers by way of
Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQ’s)
regarding accelerator cable failure,
cruise control cable failure, and/or stuck
throttles. These are identified in the PE
12–019 Opening Resume in certain MY
2002–2004 Ford Escape and Mazda
Tribute vehicles. NHTSA takes these
complaints seriously. Considering the
VOQ complaints in the context of the
2012 crash in Arizona, NHTSA opened
a preliminary evaluation to investigate
the safety consequence broadly
including the scope and adequacy of
Recall 04V–574 and Recall 04V–583.
However, aside from the petition from
CAS, NHTSA has not received any other
complaints that Ford and Mazda failed
to notify owners of vehicles that had
been repaired pursuant to Recall 04V–
574 or Recall 04V–583 of a faulty recall
repair, file a Part 573 Report with
NHTSA and initiate a second Ford
Escape or Mazda Tribute recall, or file
a Part 573 Report reporting the cruise
control cable defect and recalling the
Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute cruise
control cables. Nor has NHTSA received
any other requests that the Agency
conduct a hearing to assess whether
Ford and Mazda have met their
statutory and regulatory obligations to
notify owners and correct the defects at
issue in Recall 04V–574 and Recall
04V–583.
Fourth, we consider the likelihood
that NHTSA can resolve this alleged
problem without a hearing. NHTSA
believes that it can obtain the
information it needs to resolve this
matter by directly using its information
gathering authorities with respect to
Ford and Mazda, contacting Ford
Escape and Mazda Tribute owners and
otherwise conducting an agency
investigation. We do not believe that
there would be benefits to holding a
hearing. In fact, the time taken to plan
for and hold a hearing would detract
from the investigation.
Finally, the Agency will consider
other pertinent factors. The Agency has
opened PE 12–019 to assess the Ford
Escape and Mazda Tribute recalls and
broader issues that may not be related
to those recalls. We believe that an
investigation is a more efficient way of
obtaining the information necessary to
evaluate the issues presented in CAS’s
petition than holding a hearing.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
43218
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
CAS’s petition for a hearing is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120, 30162;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: July 17, 2012.
David Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–18060 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0048;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Sonoran Talussnail
as Endangered or Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
Sonoran talussnail (Sonorella
magdalenensis) as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
and to designate critical habitat. Based
on our review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing this species may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the
status of the species to determine if
listing the Sonoran talussnail is
warranted. To ensure that this status
review is comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding
this species. Based on the status review,
we will issue a 12-month finding on the
petition, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: We request that we receive
information on or before September 24,
2012. The deadline for submitting an
electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on this date. After September 24,
2012, you must submit information
directly to the Division of Policy and
Directives Management (see ADDRESSES
section below). Please note that we
might not be able to address or
incorporate information that we receive
after the above requested date.
Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jul 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search
field, enter Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–
2012–0048, which is the docket number
for this action. Then click on the Search
button. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS– R2–ES–2012–
0048; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we
receive on https://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post
any personal information you provide
us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321
West Royal Palm Road, Phoenix, AZ
85021; by telephone at 602–242–0210;
or by facsimile at 602–242–2513. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a
species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status
of the species (status review). For the
status review to be complete and based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we request
information on the Sonoran talussnail
from governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information
on:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing threats and
conservation measures for the species,
its habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing the Sonoran
talussnail is warranted, we will propose
critical habitat (see definition in section
3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the
Act, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time we
propose to list the species. Therefore,
we also request data and information
on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently
found;
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species that are ‘‘essential for the
conservation of the species’’; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you
think we should propose for designation
if the species is proposed for listing, and
why such habitat meets the
requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support
for, or opposition to, the action under
consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning this status review by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this personal
identifying information from public
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43216-43218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18060]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 552; 557
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition and Petition for a
Hearing
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Center for Auto Safety has petitioned NHTSA to open defect
investigations on Model Year (MY) 2002-2004 Ford Escape and 2001-2004
Mazda Tribute vehicles with certain cruise control cables. The Center
for Auto Safety has also petitioned for a hearing to address whether
Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Mazda North American Operations (Mazda)
met their obligations to notify owners and correct a defect in certain
Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute vehicles. The petitions to open
investigations are denied as moot and the petitions to conduct hearings
are denied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derek Rinehardt, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-3642).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Center for Auto Safety, in letters dated July 8, 2012 and July
13, 2012, petitioned for a Defect Order under 49 CFR Part 552 and for a
Hearing on Notification and Remedy of Defects under 49 CFR Part 577.
The petitions relate to Ford's recall of MY 2002-2004 Ford Escape
vehicles (Recall 04V-574) and Mazda's recall of MY 2002-2004 Mazda
Tribute vehicles (Recall 04V-583).
In 49 CFR Part 573 Defect and Information Reports (Part 573 Report)
filed in December 2004, Ford and Mazda both informed NHTSA that the
inner liner of the accelerator cable in certain Ford Escape and Mazda
Tribute vehicles could migrate out of place during vehicle operation,
and prevent the throttle body from returning to the idle position. Ford
and Mazda said that the safety consequence of a throttle body not
returning to the idle position was a progressive, and in some cases
sudden increase in speed. Ford and
[[Page 43217]]
Mazda notified vehicle owners of the recalls (Recall 04V-574 and 04V-
583) in January 2005. Thereafter, on October 6, 2005, Ford released a
recall update to dealers. In that update, Ford provided supplemental
instructions on how to remove the accelerator cable. The instructions
indicate that damage to the speed (or cruise) control cable can result
if the accelerator cable is not properly removed. Mazda, however, did
not issue a recall update.
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) asserts that Ford and Mazda failed
to notify about 319,500 Ford Escape owners and 84,700 Mazda Tribute
owners that their vehicles' speed (or cruise) control cables may have
been damaged during the accelerator cable replacements conducted in
Recall 04V-574 and Recall 04V-583. According to CAS, these vehicles
were repaired prior to September 30, 2005. Related to this potential
damage, CAS states that Ford and Mazda did not file Part 573 Reports
with NHTSA which would have initiated a second recall. CAS adds that
Ford and Mazda did not file Part 573 Reports and recall the cruise
control cables. CAS claims that the cruise control cable can fail
independently of being damaged in the course of repairs conducted
pursuant to Recall 04V-574 and Recall 04V-583.
In its July 8 petition, CAS refers to a crash involving a MY 2002
Ford Escape which occurred in January 2012 in Payson, Arizona. The
driver of the Ford Escape was killed in the crash. CAS states that the
driver's vehicle had been repaired in January 2005, after Recall 04V-
574 was announced but before the October 2005 recall update was
released.
NHTSA has been gathering information on the Arizona crash since
early 2012 when it first learned of it. NHTSA obtained the police
report when it became available. In June 2012, NHTSA contacted counsel
representing the driver's family to obtain more information on the
crash. Independent of CAS's petition, NHTSA opened a preliminary
investigation (PE 12-019) on July 17, 2012 that among other things will
encompass issues raised by the Center for Auto Safety's petition.
II. CAS's Petition That NHTSA Open a Defect Investigation Is Denied as
Moot
CAS requests that NHTSA open a defect investigation into MY 2002-
2004 Ford Escapes and MY 2001-2004 Mazda Tributes with cruise control
cables of the same design as in Recall 04V-574, Recall 04V-583, and in
the Arizona vehicle. Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.3, any interested person
may file a petition requesting that the Administrator commence a
proceeding to decide whether to issue an order concerning the
notification and remedy of a failure of a motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment to comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard or a defect in such vehicle or equipment that relates to motor
vehicle safety. If NHTSA grants the petition, NHTSA opens an
investigation.
Based on the information obtained by NHTSA prior to the filing of
the CAS petition, NHTSA opened an investigation on July 17, 2012 that
will, among other issues, assess the scope and remedy of Recall 04V-574
(involving certain model year 2002-2004 Ford Escape vehicles) and
Recall 04V-583 (involving certain model year 2002-2004 Mazda Tribute
vehicles). In view of the fact that NHTSA has opened an investigation
that will examine the issues on the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute speed
control cables, including claims raised by CAS, the agency denies this
portion of CAS's petition as moot.
III. CAS's Petition for a Hearing on Notification and Remedy of Defects
Is Denied
CAS's petition for a hearing on notification and remedy of defects
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 557 requests that NHTSA hold a hearing to
determine whether Ford and Mazda reasonably met their obligations to
notify owners and correct the defects at issue in Recall 04V-574 and
Recall 04V-583. In determining whether to hold a hearing, the agency
considers (1) The nature of the complaint; (2) the seriousness of the
alleged breach of obligation to remedy; (3) the existence of similar
complaints; (4) the ability of the NHTSA to resolve the problem without
holding a hearing; and (5) other pertinent matters. 49 CFR 557.6.
We first consider the nature of the complaint. CAS claims that Ford
did not notify owners of about 319,500 vehicles of potential damage to
speed control cables caused by a faulty recall repair in Recall 04V-
574. CAS claims that Mazda did not notify owners of about 84,700
vehicles of potential damage to speed control cables caused by a faulty
recall repair in Recall 04V-583. CAS also claims that Ford and Mazda
did not file Reports pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573 with NHTSA which would
have initiated a second recall. Finally, CAS claims that Ford and Mazda
did not file Part 573 Reports and recall the cruise control cable.
Federal regulations require vehicle manufacturers to submit reports to
NHTSA for each defect that the manufacturer or the Administrator of
NHTSA determines to be related to motor vehicle safety. 49 CFR 573.6.
Issues of the nature raised by CAS will be addressed in PE 12-019.
Second, we consider the seriousness of the alleged breach of
obligation to remedy. If CAS's claims are true, they are serious. NHTSA
will consider them in PE 12-019.
Third, we consider the existence of similar complaints. NHTSA
received complaints from consumers by way of Vehicle Owner
Questionnaires (VOQ's) regarding accelerator cable failure, cruise
control cable failure, and/or stuck throttles. These are identified in
the PE 12-019 Opening Resume in certain MY 2002-2004 Ford Escape and
Mazda Tribute vehicles. NHTSA takes these complaints seriously.
Considering the VOQ complaints in the context of the 2012 crash in
Arizona, NHTSA opened a preliminary evaluation to investigate the
safety consequence broadly including the scope and adequacy of Recall
04V-574 and Recall 04V-583. However, aside from the petition from CAS,
NHTSA has not received any other complaints that Ford and Mazda failed
to notify owners of vehicles that had been repaired pursuant to Recall
04V-574 or Recall 04V-583 of a faulty recall repair, file a Part 573
Report with NHTSA and initiate a second Ford Escape or Mazda Tribute
recall, or file a Part 573 Report reporting the cruise control cable
defect and recalling the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute cruise control
cables. Nor has NHTSA received any other requests that the Agency
conduct a hearing to assess whether Ford and Mazda have met their
statutory and regulatory obligations to notify owners and correct the
defects at issue in Recall 04V-574 and Recall 04V-583.
Fourth, we consider the likelihood that NHTSA can resolve this
alleged problem without a hearing. NHTSA believes that it can obtain
the information it needs to resolve this matter by directly using its
information gathering authorities with respect to Ford and Mazda,
contacting Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute owners and otherwise
conducting an agency investigation. We do not believe that there would
be benefits to holding a hearing. In fact, the time taken to plan for
and hold a hearing would detract from the investigation.
Finally, the Agency will consider other pertinent factors. The
Agency has opened PE 12-019 to assess the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute
recalls and broader issues that may not be related to those recalls. We
believe that an investigation is a more efficient way of obtaining the
information necessary to evaluate the issues presented in CAS's
petition than holding a hearing.
[[Page 43218]]
CAS's petition for a hearing is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, 30162; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: July 17, 2012.
David Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-18060 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
