Evo VIII NHTSA Import Petition - G&K Response to Comments
Aug 26, 2003, 06:31 AM
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo VIII NHTSA Import Petition - G&K Response to Comments
Earlier discussion of G&K's petition to NHTSA to import grey-market LHD Evo VIII's into the US may be found at:
Evo VIII NHTSA Import Petition Announced
Evolution VIII Import Petition Comment Period Extended
All documents related to the petition, including the comments received, may be viewed at:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...berValue=15470
NHTSA always allows an RI to respond to negative comments about its petition. Most RI's use that opportunity to rebut the arguments made in the comments and to clarify or even amend the procedures it has proposed to conform the vehicle to standards. For some unknown reason, G&K has squandered its opportunity to answer any of the criticism of its petition but has, instead, latched onto the timestamp placed on a copy of MMNA's comments by DOT Docket Management. This is crazy for two reasons.
First, MMNA's comments were very likely received (both at Coleman Sachs' fax machine and at DOT Docket Management) just before the close of business (when everyone goes home) on August 6. Just because DOT Docket Management's package of 10 copies wan't opened until the next day doesn't invalidate MMNA's comments.
Second, there is absolutely no way that NHTSA will ignore comments from a manufacturer's representative, even if they are received one day late.
Evo VIII NHTSA Import Petition Announced
Evolution VIII Import Petition Comment Period Extended
All documents related to the petition, including the comments received, may be viewed at:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...berValue=15470
August 11,2003
VIA FACSIMILE
Coleman Sachs
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street , S.W.
Washington ,DC 20590
Re: Docket No NHTSA—2003—15470-1 , Comments by Mayer, Brown , Rowe , & Maw LLP counsel for
Mitsubishi.
The above stated petition was originally to close July 30, 2003. On July 29, 2003 Mitsubishi Motors North
America, Inc("Mitsubishi") , requested more time for comments. The NHTSA granted Mitsubishi's request,
however, Mitsubishi's counsel was unable to submit comments within the extended time allotted, comments were
submitted late , one day after the end of the extension period , August 7,2003.
While it is stated that "All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above
will be considered ,..." . And also, "To the extent possible , comments filed after the closing date will also be
considered."
Comments made after the closing date should not be considered. Why else would there be a specific allotted
time for comments, an extension requested, granted, and then failure to meet this extended comment period?
Registered Importers are in the business of importing and legalizing non-complying vehicles. As a reputable
business a realistic time frame of work to be preformed must be provided to customers. Delays can negatively
affect our business, and our ability to do business.
While we have the same goals of having a vehicle that meets all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, we are
in the business of providing a service to customers. Delays degrade our high level of service to our customers.
NHTSA was already reasonable in allowing Mitsubishi an extra week to make comments on the above petition.
However they seemed unable to meet this deadline and instead submitted their comments late on August 7,
2003.
It has been more than 6 months since the original petitions were submitted to the NHTSA, and we respectfully
ask that the NHTSA proceed with approving this petition with a minimal amount of further delays. These delays
do nothing more than hurt our business and our customer service.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Sean Morris
VIA FACSIMILE
Coleman Sachs
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street , S.W.
Washington ,DC 20590
Re: Docket No NHTSA—2003—15470-1 , Comments by Mayer, Brown , Rowe , & Maw LLP counsel for
Mitsubishi.
The above stated petition was originally to close July 30, 2003. On July 29, 2003 Mitsubishi Motors North
America, Inc("Mitsubishi") , requested more time for comments. The NHTSA granted Mitsubishi's request,
however, Mitsubishi's counsel was unable to submit comments within the extended time allotted, comments were
submitted late , one day after the end of the extension period , August 7,2003.
While it is stated that "All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above
will be considered ,..." . And also, "To the extent possible , comments filed after the closing date will also be
considered."
Comments made after the closing date should not be considered. Why else would there be a specific allotted
time for comments, an extension requested, granted, and then failure to meet this extended comment period?
Registered Importers are in the business of importing and legalizing non-complying vehicles. As a reputable
business a realistic time frame of work to be preformed must be provided to customers. Delays can negatively
affect our business, and our ability to do business.
While we have the same goals of having a vehicle that meets all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, we are
in the business of providing a service to customers. Delays degrade our high level of service to our customers.
NHTSA was already reasonable in allowing Mitsubishi an extra week to make comments on the above petition.
However they seemed unable to meet this deadline and instead submitted their comments late on August 7,
2003.
It has been more than 6 months since the original petitions were submitted to the NHTSA, and we respectfully
ask that the NHTSA proceed with approving this petition with a minimal amount of further delays. These delays
do nothing more than hurt our business and our customer service.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Sean Morris
First, MMNA's comments were very likely received (both at Coleman Sachs' fax machine and at DOT Docket Management) just before the close of business (when everyone goes home) on August 6. Just because DOT Docket Management's package of 10 copies wan't opened until the next day doesn't invalidate MMNA's comments.
Second, there is absolutely no way that NHTSA will ignore comments from a manufacturer's representative, even if they are received one day late.
Aug 26, 2003, 08:37 AM
#3
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Between the Blue and the Sand
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also seem to be chiding NHTSA about the time it takes to get through this process. The tone is very unprofessional IMO. And I can't see how this tone could possibly be a good thing for the RI who is trying to plead it's case.
SC~
SC~
Last edited by Secret Chimp; Aug 26, 2003 at 08:41 AM.
Aug 26, 2003, 09:35 AM
#5
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Between the Blue and the Sand
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that they shouldn't have sold anything until they got NHTSA approval on the cars. And them complaining about timelines just puts a magnifying glass over the fact that they have already taken in money and made promises they might not be able to keep.
SC~
SC~
Aug 28, 2003, 06:24 AM
#6
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitsubishi, through its counsel, has responded to the G&K fax quoted above. Mitsubishi's response reads:
Dear Mr. Sachs:
Through its undersigned counsel, Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi")
hereby submits its response to the letter, dated August 11, 2003, submitted by G&K Automotive
Conversion, Inc. ("G&K"), which is docketed as NHTSA-03-15470-7 and was posted to the
electronic docket on August 25, 2003. In the letter, G&K asks that the agency disregard the
comments submitted by the undersigned on behalf of Mitsubishi because, according to G&K,
those comments were filed "one day after the end of the extension period, August 7, 2003."
We do not wish to belabor the issue, but must point out that G&K's letter is mistaken.
The notice granting a reopening of the comment period (which itself was not published in the
Federal Register until August 6, 2003) stated that "[all] comments received before the close of
business on the closing date [August 6, 2003] . . . will be considered . . . . To the extent possible,
comments filed after the closing date will also be considered." 68 Fed. Reg. 46676, 46676 (Aug.
6, 2003). Mitsubishi's comments were faxed to your attention before the close of business on the
West Coast, where both Mitsubishi and G&K maintain their places of business. Mitsubishi's
counsel faxed the comments from Washington, D.C. at 4:30 p.m., PDT (7:30 p.m., EDT) after
receiving authorization to do so from Mitsubishi.
Moreover, as noted above, the notice reopening the comment period stated that the
agency will consider comments filed subsequent to the close of the comment period "[t]o the
extent possible." Thus, even if Mitsubishi's comments were regarded as technically late, because
they were faxed to NHTSA two and a half hours after the docket room closed, G&K has not
shown that it was not "possible" for NHTSA to consider them.¹
There is no reason to adopt the punitive approach to comments suggested by G&K here.
We do not believe that, on any fair reading of the notice granting the reopening of the comment
period, Mitsubishi's comments were late at all. Even if those comments were a few hours late in
the East Coast time zone, however, it is both feasible and well within the agency’s discretion to
consider them, and, in order to reach a fully informed decision on the safety-related issues raised
in this proceeding, the agency should do so.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Adam C. Sloane
cc: Docket Management, PL-401 (by hand delivery, Aug. 27, 2003)
_______________________
¹ The fact that Mitsubishi’s comments were hand-served at the docket room the next
morning did not affect the agency's ability to consider Mitsubishi's comments.
Through its undersigned counsel, Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi")
hereby submits its response to the letter, dated August 11, 2003, submitted by G&K Automotive
Conversion, Inc. ("G&K"), which is docketed as NHTSA-03-15470-7 and was posted to the
electronic docket on August 25, 2003. In the letter, G&K asks that the agency disregard the
comments submitted by the undersigned on behalf of Mitsubishi because, according to G&K,
those comments were filed "one day after the end of the extension period, August 7, 2003."
We do not wish to belabor the issue, but must point out that G&K's letter is mistaken.
The notice granting a reopening of the comment period (which itself was not published in the
Federal Register until August 6, 2003) stated that "[all] comments received before the close of
business on the closing date [August 6, 2003] . . . will be considered . . . . To the extent possible,
comments filed after the closing date will also be considered." 68 Fed. Reg. 46676, 46676 (Aug.
6, 2003). Mitsubishi's comments were faxed to your attention before the close of business on the
West Coast, where both Mitsubishi and G&K maintain their places of business. Mitsubishi's
counsel faxed the comments from Washington, D.C. at 4:30 p.m., PDT (7:30 p.m., EDT) after
receiving authorization to do so from Mitsubishi.
Moreover, as noted above, the notice reopening the comment period stated that the
agency will consider comments filed subsequent to the close of the comment period "[t]o the
extent possible." Thus, even if Mitsubishi's comments were regarded as technically late, because
they were faxed to NHTSA two and a half hours after the docket room closed, G&K has not
shown that it was not "possible" for NHTSA to consider them.¹
There is no reason to adopt the punitive approach to comments suggested by G&K here.
We do not believe that, on any fair reading of the notice granting the reopening of the comment
period, Mitsubishi's comments were late at all. Even if those comments were a few hours late in
the East Coast time zone, however, it is both feasible and well within the agency’s discretion to
consider them, and, in order to reach a fully informed decision on the safety-related issues raised
in this proceeding, the agency should do so.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Adam C. Sloane
cc: Docket Management, PL-401 (by hand delivery, Aug. 27, 2003)
_______________________
¹ The fact that Mitsubishi’s comments were hand-served at the docket room the next
morning did not affect the agency's ability to consider Mitsubishi's comments.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LuDa
Lancer Engine Tech
16
Apr 19, 2009 05:14 AM
Señor Info
Evo General
41
Aug 8, 2003 11:50 AM
