Public Hearing To Determine Whether Wildfire Has Met Remedy Requirements |
|---|
Topics: Wildfire
|
Daniel C. Smith
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
September 25, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59036-59039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0134]
Public Hearing To Determine Whether Wildfire Has Met Remedy
Requirements
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA will hold a public hearing on whether Snyder Computer
Systems, Inc. and Snyder Systems, Inc., also known as Wildfire Motors
(Wildfire),\1\ of Steubenville, Ohio, have reasonably met their
obligation to remedy noncompliances with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, in a recall
involving Model Year (MY) 2009 WF650-C three-wheeled vehicles, which
Wildfire imported from China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wildfire Motors is a registered trade name of Snyder
Computer Systems, Inc. In correspondence with NHTSA, Wildfire has
also used the corporate name Snyder Systems, Inc.
DATES: The public hearing will be held beginning at 10 a.m. ET on
October 15, 2012 in the Oklahoma City room of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Conference Center, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending
the proceedings arrive at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate
entry into the Conference Center. NHTSA cannot ensure that late
arrivals will be permitted access to the hearing. Attendees are
strongly discouraged from bringing laptop computers to the hearing, as
they will be subject to additional security measures. If you wish to
attend or speak at the hearing, you must register in advance no later
than October 9, 2012 (and October 4, 2012 for non-U.S. citizens), by
following the instructions in the Procedural Matters section of this
notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and
space allows, but cannot ensure that late registrants will be able to
attend or speak at the hearing. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity
to consider comments, NHTSA must receive written comments by October 9,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
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.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For registration to attend or speak at
the public hearing: Sabrina Fleming, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: 202-366-9896) (Fax: 202-366-3081). For hearing procedures:
Kerry Kolodziej, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: 202-366-5263) (Fax: 202-366-3820). Information regarding
the recall is available on NHTSA's Web site: http://www.safercar.gov.
To find this recall: (1) In the drop-down menu under ``Safety
Recalls,'' search for a recall by vehicle; (2) select model year 2009;
(3) select Wildfire as the make; (4) select WF650-C as the model; and
(5) click ``Retrieve Recalls.'' Once information on Recall No. 12V-031
is displayed, clicking on the ``Document Search'' button will display
recall-related documents.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(e) and 49 CFR
557.6(d) and 557.7, NHTSA has decided to hold a public hearing on
whether Wildfire has reasonably met its obligation under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (Safety Act), to
remedy the MY 2009 Wildfire WF650-C's noncompliances with FMVSS No.
122, Motorcycle brake systems. The noncompliances are the subject of a
recall campaign, Recall No. 12V-031.
I. Initiation of a Recall
A manufacturer of a motor vehicle that decides in good faith that
the vehicle does not comply with an applicable FMVSS must notify NHTSA
by submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report, commonly
referred to as a Part 573 Report. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c); 49 CFR 573.6.\2\
A Part 573 Report shall be submitted not more than 5 working days after
a noncompliance with a FMVSS has been determined to exist. 49 CFR
573.6(b). The manufacturer must subsequently file quarterly reports
with NHTSA containing information including the number of vehicles that
have been remedied. 49 CFR 573.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition to its notification to NHTSA, if the
manufacturer of a motor vehicle decides in good faith that the
vehicle does not comply with an applicable FMVSS, the manufacturer
must notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle of the
noncompliance. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c); see 49 CFR part 573; 49 CFR part
577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Safety Act, a ``manufacturer'' of a motor vehicle
is a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, or a person
importing motor vehicles for resale. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). Both the
importer of a motor vehicle and the fabricating manufacturer of the
vehicle are responsible for remedying any noncompliance determined to
exist in the vehicle. 49 CFR 573.5(a). As to imported motor vehicles,
compliance with recall regulations by either the fabricating
manufacturer or the importer of the vehicle shall be considered
compliance by both. 49 CFR 573.3(b).
II. Remedy Requirements
A manufacturer of a noncomplying motor vehicle is required to
remedy the vehicle without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). The manufacturer
may remedy the noncompliance by repairing the vehicle, by replacing the
vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or by
refunding the purchase
[[Page 59037]]
price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C.
30120(a). If a manufacturer decides to repair a noncomplying motor
vehicle and the repair is not done adequately within a reasonable time,
the manufacturer shall replace the vehicle without charge with an
identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refund the purchase
price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C.
30120(c).
On its own motion or on application by any interested person, NHTSA
may conduct a hearing to decide whether a manufacturer has reasonably
met the remedy requirements. 49 U.S.C. 30120(e). If NHTSA decides that
the manufacturer has not reasonably met the remedy requirements, it
shall order the manufacturer to take specified action to meet those
requirements, including by ordering the manufacturer to refund the
purchase price of the noncomplying vehicles, less a reasonable
allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a), (c), (e). NHTSA may
also take any other action authorized by the Safety Act, including
assessing civil penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e), 30165(a)(1). A
person that violates the Safety Act, including its remedy requirements,
or regulations prescribed thereunder, is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of not more than $6,000 for each
violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle and for
each failure to perform a required act. The maximum penalty for a
related series of violations is $17,350,000. 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1); 49
CFR 578.6.
III. MY 2009 Wildfire WF650-C
The MY 2009 WF650-C is a three-wheeled vehicle with an enclosed cab
body style. As a three-wheeled vehicle, the MY 2009 WF650-C is subject
to the FMVSSs for motorcycles. See 49 CFR 571.3(b).
Wildfire is the importer of the MY 2009 WF650-C and the registered
agent for the fabricating manufacturer, Taixing Sandi Motorcycle Co.,
Ltd. (TSM) of China. Don Snyder is the President and CEO of the
privately held Wildfire.
A. NHTSA's Investigation of the MY 2009 WF650-C
1. NHTSA's Testing and Apparent Noncompliances Identified
In 2009, NHTSA tested a NHTSA-owned MY 2009 WF650-C for compliance
with FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, at Transportation
Research Center Inc. (TRC) in East Liberty, Ohio.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See NHTSA, Safety Compliance Testing for FMVSS 122, Final
Report No. 122-TRC-11-001 (Aug. 18, 2011). The test report is
publicly available by searching on http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/comply/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA identified multiple apparent noncompliances with FMVSS No.
122. First, the vehicle did not comply with the first effectiveness
requirement of FMVSS No. 122, S5.2.1, Service brake system, because the
service brakes were not capable of stopping the motorcycle from 30
m.p.h. within 54 feet during NHTSA's testing.\4\ Due to this apparent
noncompliance with the stopping distance requirements, NHTSA terminated
its testing following this first (preburnished) effectiveness testing.
Additionally, NHTSA observed that the vehicle did not comply with FMVSS
No. 122, S5.1.2.1, Master cylinder reservoirs, because it did not have
a separate reservoir for each brake circuit with each reservoir filler
opening having its own cover, seal, and cover retention device. NHTSA
notified Wildfire of these apparent noncompliances on December 18,
2009.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The vehicle also was unable to stop from 45 m.p.h. within
121 feet, as required by the Standard, based on several attempted
stops.
\5\ Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Dec.
18, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also later identified and notified Wildfire of two additional
apparent noncompliances with other requirements of FMVSS No. 122.
First, the vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No. 122, S5.1.2.2,
Reservoir labeling, because there was no label as required. Second, the
vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No. 122, S5.1.3.1, Failure indicator
lamp, because the vehicle did not have a failure indicator lamp (which
is required to activate for pressure failure, low fluid, and
momentarily when the ignition switch is turned to the ``on'' or
``start'' position).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Wildfire's Response to Apparent Noncompliances Identified By NHTSA
Although NHTSA provided Wildfire with information in December 2009
regarding the apparent noncompliances with the stopping distance and
master cylinder reservoir requirements, Wildfire did not acknowledge at
that time that the MY 2009 WF650-C failed to comply with FMVSS No. 122.
NHTSA's December 2009 letter requested certain information from
Wildfire, to further its investigation of the apparent
noncompliances.\7\ Wildfire responded on March 5, 2010 and made the
unsubstantiated allegation (on behalf of TSM) that the NHTSA-owned
vehicle's brakes must have been out of adjustment, and therefore it was
not a representative vehicle.\8\ Wildfire claimed that when TSM
conducted brake testing in China, ``the result was the brakes were
fine.'' \9\ Wildfire provided an untranslated Chinese test report.
However, that report did not appear to indicate that any stopping
distance tests were performed. Wildfire also indicated that it
conducted its own stopping distance tests, but did not provide any
documentation evidencing that those tests were consistent with FMVSS
No. 122.\10\ Wildfire did not provide any response regarding the
apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 122, S5.1.2.1, Master cylinder
reservoirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Dec.
18, 2009).
\8\ See Email from A. Tipton, Wildfire to S. Seigel, NHTSA (Mar.
5, 2010).
\9\ Email from A. Tipton, Wildfire to S. Seigel, NHTSA (Mar. 5,
2010).
\10\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After NHTSA notified Wildfire that its response was deficient,
Wildfire purported to conduct stopping distance testing on a vehicle in
April 2010.\11\ The testing data provided by Wildfire did not appear
realistic, and NHTSA sought additional documentation from Wildfire.\12\
Instead, Wildfire inquired, in June 2010, if it could make arrangements
to observe the NHTSA-owned vehicle at TRC.\13\ In August 2010, Wildfire
specifically requested retesting of the NHTSA-owned vehicle and the
opportunity to make adjustments to the vehicle.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (sent
Dec. 27, 2011).
\12\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
\13\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
\14\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After making arrangements with NHTSA, on September 28, 2010,
Wildfire representatives inspected the vehicle at TRC and adjusted and
bled the brakes. Wildfire claimed that these adjustments would allow
the vehicle to comply with the stopping distance requirements. However,
the adjustments did not materially change the results. When the vehicle
was retested on September 30, 2010, it again failed to stop from 30
m.p.h. within 54 feet (or from 45 m.p.h. within 121 feet), as required
by FMVSS No. 122, S5.2.1, Service brake system.\15\ NHTSA notified
Wildfire of the results by email on October 1, 2010.\16\ Instead of
acknowledging the vehicle was noncompliant with FMVSS No. 122
[[Page 59038]]
following this testing, Wildfire continued to delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (sent
Dec. 27, 2011).
\16\ Email from S. Seigel, NHTSA to A. Tipton, Wildfire (Oct. 1,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2011, NHTSA requested in writing that Wildfire and/or
TSM make a determination that the MY 2009 WF650-C is noncompliant with
FMVSS No. 122 and conduct a voluntary recall. NHTSA's recall request
letter addressed each of the four apparent noncompliances identified
above.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (sent
Dec. 27, 2011); see Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to J. Ji, TSM (Jan.
18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Wildfire's Notifications to NHTSA of FMVSS No. 122 Noncompliances
Following NHTSA's formal request, and over two years after NHTSA
notified Wildfire of the apparent noncompliances with the stopping
distance and master cylinder reservoir requirements, Wildfire initiated
a recall.\18\ Wildfire first notified NHTSA that the MY 2009 WF650-C
was noncompliant with FMVSS No. 122 by submitting a Part 573 Report
prepared on January 30, 2012.\19\ Wildfire acknowledged noncompliances
with the master cylinder reservoir, reservoir labeling, and failure
indicator lamp requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Although TSM did not respond to NHTSA's recall request,
compliance with recall regulations by either the fabricating
manufacturer or the importer of a vehicle is considered compliance
by both. 49 CFR 573.3(b). Nothing herein limits TSM's
responsibilities and liabilities for the noncompliance with these
vehicles.
\19\ Recall No. 12V-031, Part 573 Report (prepared Jan. 30,
2012). Wildfire's Part 573 Reports and other documents relevant to
the recall are available at www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Wildfire did not address the stopping distance
requirements of FMVSS No. 122 in its initial Part 573 Report. In a
letter to Wildfire dated February 1, 2012, NHTSA again requested that
Wildfire determine there was a noncompliance with S5.2.1, Service brake
system.\20\ Wildfire responded with an amended Part 573 Report,
prepared February 3, 2012, acknowledging that NHTSA found that the
WF650-C did not meet the stopping distance requirements of FMVSS No.
122, in addition to acknowledging the other noncompliances addressed by
Wildfire's earlier Part 573 Report.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Feb.
1, 2012).
\21\ Recall No. 12V-031, Amended Part 573 Report (prepared Feb.
3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA identified several deficiencies with Wildfire's amended Part
573 Report, including that it failed to include a clear and unequivocal
statement by Wildfire that a noncompliance existed with the stopping
distance requirements of FMVSS No. 122 and failed to specify a valid
remedy for that noncompliance.\22\ Wildfire subsequently submitted a
second amended Part 573 Report, prepared February 20, 2012.\23\ This
Part 573 Report acknowledged noncompliances with all four requirements
identified by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Feb.
9, 2012).
\23\ Recall No. 12V-031, Second Amended Part 573 Report
(prepared Feb. 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA assigned Recall Number 12V-031 to Wildfire's recall campaign.
Most recently, Wildfire reported that there are 197 vehicles subject to
the recall.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Recall No. 12V-031, Quarterly Report (Aug. 21, 2012).
Wildfire previously reported that there were 202 or 200 vehicles
subject to the recall, but has not explained why the number has
changed. See Recall No. 12V-031, Part 573 Report I (prepared Jan.
30, 2012) (202 vehicles); Recall No. 12V-031, Amended Part 573
Report I (prepared Feb. 3, 2012) (202 vehicles); Recall No. 12V-031,
Second Amended Part 573 Report I (prepared Feb. 20, 2012) (200
vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Wildfire's Repair Remedy
Wildfire elected the remedy of repairing the FMVSS No. 122
noncompliances subject to the recalls. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). However,
Wildfire reported in August 2012 that none of the vehicles subject to
the recall have been repaired.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Recall No. 12V-031, Quarterly Report (Aug. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its notification letter to owners regarding the recall, Wildfire
indicated that the WF650-C should not be operated until the vehicle is
remedied, that parts should be available for the repair after May 14,
2012, and that owners should contact a Wildfire dealer as soon as
possible to obtain a service date.\26\ Wildfire first sent this letter
on April 18, 2012 to owners based on information from its internal
records about purchasers.\27\ It appears Wildfire subsequently sent the
same letter on June 1, 2012 to registered owners, based on vehicle
registration information, despite knowing that the information in the
letter was incorrect because parts were still not available.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Request for Production
of Documents No. 2, Att. (July 12, 2012).
\27\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 14,
Att. (July 12, 2012).
\28\ See Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No.
15 (July 12, 2012). In addition to receiving a notice containing
incorrect information, registered owners also did not receive a
notification of the recall until well after 60 days from Wildfire's
noncompliance decision, as is expected. See NHTSA, Safety Recall
Compendium at 7-8, http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/documents/recompendium.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Wildfire failed to provide NHTSA with sufficient information
about its proposed repair remedy in response to NHTSA's requests, on
June 5, 2012 NHTSA sent Wildfire a Special Order seeking additional
information related to the recall and repair remedy. Wildfire responded
to the Special Order on July 12, 2012. Wildfire indicated in its
response that it did not expect parts to be available for the repairs
until July 20, 2012.\29\ Wildfire also indicated that it would send
dealers instructions for the repair remedy on July 20, 2012.\30\ It
appears that Wildfire did not do so.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 15
(July 12, 2012).
\30\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 13
(July 12, 2012).
\31\ A manufacturer is required to furnish NHTSA with a copy of
each communication involving a recall that the manufacturer issued
to, or made available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor,
lessee, other manufacturer, owner, or purchaser, no later than five
working days after the end of the month in which it is issued. 49
CFR 579.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildfire also represented in its Special Order response, made under
oath, that its repair remedy would make MY 2009 WF650-Cs compliant with
all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\32\ Wildfire indicated it
was relying on a representation from TSM (the Chinese fabricating
manufacturer).\33\ Wildfire did not provide any testing data or other
information to support the contention that the repair remedy was
effective. In fact, Wildfire acknowledged it was not sure whether the
remedy had been tested.\34\ Wildfire also represented in its response
that it hoped to have all MY 2009 WF650-Cs repaired by September 5,
2012.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 4
(July 12, 2012).
\33\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 4
(July 12, 2012).
\34\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 6
(July 12, 2012).
\35\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 5
(July 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildfire also entered into an Agreement with NHTSA to repair the
NHTSA-owned MY 2009 WF650-C in accordance with its repair remedy, which
NHTSA would then retest to the requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\36\
Wildfire retrieved the vehicle on July 23, 2012, purported to repair
it, and returned it to NHTSA on July 31, 2012.\37\ Pursuant to the
Agreement, by August 10, 2012, Wildfire was required to provide NHTSA
with a detailed description of every part installed as well as every
change or modification made to the vehicle, which Wildfire failed to
do. NHTSA proceeded with testing its repaired WF650-C vehicle in August
and September 2012. Based on
[[Page 59039]]
this testing, the repaired vehicle still did not meet the stopping
distance requirements of FMVSS No. 122, S5.2.1, Service brake system.
NHTSA also observed that the failure indicator lamp installed by
Wildfire as part of its remedy did not meet the requirements of FMVSS
No. 122, S5.1.3.1, Failure indicator lamp, because it did not: (1)
Activate as required for low fluid; (2) activate as required for
pressure failure; (3) momentarily activate when the ignition switch was
turned from the ``off'' to the ``on'' or to the ``start'' position; and
(4) include the required wording (``Brake Failure'').\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Letter from O. K. Vincent, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(July 17, 2012) (enclosing fully executed repair Agreement).
\37\ Contrary to the terms of the Agreement, Wildfire kept the
vehicle longer than 5 business days and drove the vehicle
approximately 48 more miles than the 2 miles it was permitted.
\38\ NHTSA, Safety Compliance Testing for FMVSS 122, Final
Report No. 122-TRC-12-003 (Sept. 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, contrary to Wildfire's representation, its repair remedy does
not bring the recalled vehicles into compliance with FMVSS No. 122. The
vehicles subject to the recall remain noncompliant.
IV. Decision To Conduct a Public Hearing
NHTSA has decided that it is necessary to conduct a public hearing
to decide whether Wildfire has reasonably met the remedy requirements
under 49 U.S.C. 30120. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6(d), 557.7.
NHTSA will conduct the public hearing in the Oklahoma City room of the
U.S. Department of Transportation Conference Center, located on the
first floor of the West Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Any interested person may make written and/or
oral presentations of information, views, and arguments on whether
Wildfire has reasonably met the remedy requirements. There will be no
cross-examination of witnesses. 49 CFR 557.7.
NHTSA will consider the views of participants in deciding whether
Wildfire has reasonably met the remedy requirements under 49 U.S.C.
30120, and in developing the terms of an order (if any) requiring
Wildfire to take specified action as the remedy for the noncompliances
and/or take other action. 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.8.
Procedural Matters: Interested persons may participate in these
proceedings through written and/or oral presentations. Persons wishing
to attend must notify Sabrina Fleming, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: 202-366-9896) (Fax: 202-366-3081), before the close of
business on October 9, 2012 (and October 4, 2012 for non-U.S.
citizens). Each person wishing to attend must provide his or her name
and country of citizenship. Non-U.S. citizens must also provide date of
birth, title or position, and passport or diplomatic ID number, along
with expiration date. Each person wishing to make an oral presentation
must also specify the amount of time that the presentation is expected
to last, his or her organizational affiliation, phone number, and email
address. NHTSA will prepare a schedule of presentations. Depending upon
the number of persons who wish to make oral presentations and the
anticipated length of those presentations, NHTSA may add an additional
day or days to the hearing, and/or may limit the length of oral
presentations.
The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations, such as sign
language interpreters, should contact Ms. Kerry Kolodziej using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above no later than October 4, 2012. A transcript of the proceedings
will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date.
Persons who wish to file written comments should submit them so
that they are received by NHTSA no later than October 9, 2012.
Information on how to submit written comments to the docket is located
under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6(d), 557.7;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a), 501.2(a)(1), and 49 CFR
501.8.
Issued: September 19, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-23606 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P