ID: nht92-2.50

DATE: 11/01/92 EST

FROM: Guy Boudreault

TO: U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/93 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Guy Boudreault (A40; Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT:

unfortunately, I am compelled to send you a copy of a letter sent by me to Mr. Wayne Mc Neil, the safety department head at Sunbury Transport Limited, in regard to the obligations imposed upon the drivers and asking him to act in reference to these present conditions.

I would appreciate your cooperation in regards to general rules applied within the United States relevent to the said letter. I sincerely think that safety on the roads are of major interest to you and therefore I consider it my duty to inform you as to the conditions imposed, although never expressed in writing.

I have confidence that Mr. Mc Neil will do his outmost to rectify the situation, nevertheless, I consider it my duty to report to you in order to get the whole story as to the application of the laws, for often have I seen drivers that I have worked with be charged in different accident cases causing death.

Thanking your for your cooperation in this matter, I remain respectfuly yours,

DATE

Subsequent to writing the following document, I did not send it immediately for I wanted to be sure that this document would be taken seriously considering that I am not very much educated and that many mistakes can be found in spelling as well as a lack of vocabulary to express myself reasonably well. However, I was rather encouraged to send it when the personnel company for which I work decided to give me a lay-off for lack of work. It also asked that I not send the present document for if I did, it would hurt the transportation industry. I do not believe for a minute that this would happen, but I do beleive that it might help other drivers to get better conditions in the future and thus have decided to go forward with this mailing and also have decided to walk away from driving as a proffession like many more before me. It is in my view a shame that company needs have become such important that workers' rights are diminished to the point of endangering public lives for the profit of too often subsidised companies who pride themselves in total disregard for their workers as well as the general public.

I have included a list of my calculations which can be revised at your will and have come up with the the following balance owing from the company to me. The personnel agency, has given me a part of this balance owing but has not as yet collected from the transport company and will definitely not collect all of the

amount for already, a member of the dispatching staff has refused to pay some time period claimed saying that my instructions were to go home on a certain day when in fact, he did not know that I was to wait for over eighteen (18) hours.

I finish my letter by asking that road transportation be looked into thouroughly and that logbooks be compared with payroll or tripsheets so as to find the real facts behind what every driver calls "SWINDLE SHEETS". May I add that in the last twenty-four years, my logbooks have been checked but four times, from where I seriously believe that encouragement to ignore laws is thereby given.

Respectfully yours, GUY BOUDREAULT

ILE PERROT, le 18 Octobre, 1992

Sunbury Transport Ltd Mr. Wayne McNeil P.O. Box 905 Station "A" Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5B4

Mr. McNeil,

I hereby wish to inform you of my agravated state of mind in relation with work at your employ. Of course you will understand that I realy mean employment Sunbury Transport" contracted by "A & F Personell of Montreal, Montreal, driving at leased "Renteway" tractor and pulling either leased "Caravan" trailers or "Sunbury" trailers.

I thought this situation seems to be of the most complexe category, the fact remains that "Sunbury" transport is where I get (direct orders) as to the manner in which I must perform my duties and therefore, I firmly believe that I should direct my questions, worries and suggestions to you since you are the at the helm of the safety department for transport division. Many anomalies have conflicted with the terms of my employment in comparison to the first interview I have had with you in May 1992. As I describe the discrepencies I have found, I hope that you will understand as well as appreciate my present frustations.

I was lead to believe that "Sunbury Transport insisted to our driving legaly in all aspects of the law and that we must under no circumstance drive overlog, use two log books or the use of other means for bypassing any Canadian or U.S. laws. I was also promissed by you personally that we would be allowed plenty of time for deliveries, however this is definitely not the feeling I have gotten since I first started driving at your service on June 25th, 1992. I also was promised an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I have kept my end of the deal, but somehow I have difficulty in understanding the payroll. I have therefore tabulated my log book trips as well as my paychecks and at this point I cannot yet see the equilibrium between the two. I have mentioned before that as human beings, we needed time for meals, for showers, for shaving

and sleep. It is my finding that the aforementioned have been ignored and that the appointments are taken with customers much too soon giving us no time our basic personal needs. On this subject may I suggest that (E T A)s (estimated time of arrival) be annulled. In my experience, only airlines have such ETAs' and in many cases they are delayed although they do not have to deal with scales, police, DOT checks, speed limits, school buses, school zones, stop signs, traffic lights, heavy traffic and road construction. It is also my understanding that we are paid by the shortest practical way from point A to point B and calculated schedules of delivery are at an average speed of 50 mph. or 80 km/h. while these shortest practical routings are often limited to 25, 35, and 45 mph. Please, let me know how we actually make the scheduled time of delivery within the allowed time, for after spending 24 years driving a commercial vehicle, I still donot acheive such performances. Please consider equally as important the fact that for a driver to be getting two days off every fifth or sixth week while he is working a minimum of twelve hours per day awaiting these precious days off. A driver cannot be alert, competant and comfortable in his performances under such conditions. We have to realise that we weigh 40 tons and that we are loaded to the limit most of the time and also that sometime we have to run on low fuel in order to respect the weight limit laws. In restrospect, I firmly disaprove of these working conditions and strongly suggest that some improvement be implemented, where appointments are concerned. I myself wish to advise you that I shall no longer consider the times of appointments for delevery unless reasonable time is granted to do so in consideration of the forementioned personal needs.

Mr. McNeil please consider the following duties we must perform and that for wich is paid or unpaid or benevolant.

Paid Benevolant 28/practical mile run a) Fulling tractor delivry time after 2 1/2 hrs b ) 2 1/2 per client(loading) at customer c) Calling dispatch(average 2 hrs/day) d) customer clearance e) 2 1/2 hrs per client(unloading) f) waiting for load g) paperwork

In resume on this point,I usually am at work for 16 hrs a day while being paid for miles only wich adds to my frsutations when I calculate my meal expenses etc which does not permit me to at least drive without worring about my rent and other utilities usually late paid.

Another point brought to my attention is the fact that you now want us to adjust the brakes on trailers. So I was told on October 14th, 1992 when I asked a dispatches for a P.O. for brake adjustments on trailer # 4403 and was asked to buy a 9/16" key so as to do it myself. It would be easier if I was informed asto its legality in the United States where we do most of our driving. I already know that in some Canadian provinces, it isn't legal and even if it is, brakes are too important considering the weight we carry for me to take that responsibility.

In reference to responsibility, I think it should be understood that I cannot perceive your way of thinking when people don't earn enough to make a decent living have to accept responsibility so costly that an important and prosperous international conglomerate such as the "Irving Group" would not think of being liable for such responsibilities from where the use of leased trucks trailers and Personal Agencies are hired. If a mishap should happen, and they do, the driver is sent to judgement as alone and as easily as old time Christians were sent to the Arena and fed to the lions. This has proven to be the case before in the trucking industry and it is the main reason for my intervention in this situation. It has to change in order for professional drivers to be reinstated in the industry as responsible and respected as professionals and not regarded as happy go lucky Bozos endangering public lives. I have spoken to many drivers and they were saying that alternatives to legalities needed to be used in order to make it and these alternatives ranged from a multitude of logbooks to electrical speedometers that shut off with ignition thus permitting to improve miles driven and comsequently payroll. This is not my way of operating and therefore I insist that the present conditions be revised so as to improve the safety on the roads, not only for us drivers, but for the population in general. It is your duty to improve these conditions as it is mine to report them.

Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter and hoping to hear from you very soon, I remain

respectfuly yours,

GUY BOUDREAULT - 9020

P.S.: Enclosed, you will find :

a) logbook sheets b) trip sheets c) pay slips d) payroll breakdown e) Sunbury "Memorandum" f) today's trucking exherps g) Copies of presentation to all organisms concerned.

ID: 1983-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."

I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".

I hope this answers you question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1983

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.

As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.

I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.

I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.

Thank you very much for your help and consideration.

Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment

ID: aiam5053

Dear Mr. Odaira: This responds to your letter asking about the sid door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test: Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.) The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d). You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels. You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole. Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle. Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested. In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole. Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position. For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test. I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4906

"Dear Mr. Reed: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, as it relates to electronic transmission shift controls that operate automatic transmissions used in heavy duty trucks and RV's and on solenoid operated powershift transmissions used in various on and off highway vehicles. You asked whether 'the intent of section S3.l.3 of the standard is to render the engine starter inoperative when the transmission is in a forward or reverse drive gear or when the shift lever . . . is in such a gear.' As discussed below, Standard No. 102 expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S3.l.3 of Standard No. 102 reads as follows: S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. The standard thus expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You state in your letter that '(t)he interests of public safety will be best served by requiring that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission itself, not the transmission shift lever, is in a forward or reverse drive gear.' According to your letter, with the introduction of electronic shift systems and fully electronic transmissions, the connection between the shift lever and the transmission is rarely performed by direct mechanical means, and there is a possibility that the shift lever position may not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission in situations where the transmission control circuitry overrides the shift lever selection in the interest of safety, transmission protection or other criteria related to specific applications. You state that any attempt to artificially match the electronic shift lever's position to the gear currently enaged by the transmission in such override situations involves added cost and complexity, as well as safety and reliability concerns. You also argue that requiring the shift lever to be moved to neutral when the transmission itself is already in neutral due to some override condition imposes unnecessary safety hazards in some applications. You should be aware that sections S3.l.4.l and S3.l.4.2 of Standard No. 102 require identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. A design where the shift lever position displayed to the driver did not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission would not comply with this requirement, since it would not show the position selected. We believe that such a design raises obvious safety concerns, regardless of the technology used for the transmission and shift system, since it would mislead the driver concerning the gear position selected. I note that the vehicles your letter asks about include, among others, 'various on and off highway vehicles,' and that the term 'off highway vehicles' could include certain vehicles which are not considered 'motor vehicles.' Standard No. l02, as well as NHTSA's other safety standards, apply only to motor vehicles. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: FERBLTR.CRS

Gabriel J. Ferber, Esquire
Nesper, Ferber & DiGiacomo, LLP
501 James Audubon Drive, Suite 300
Amherst, NY 14228

Re: Superior Auto Sales, Inc.

NSA-32 RSH; RII-10/R93-017

Dear Mr. Ferber:

This is in response to your letter of August 27, 1996, to Marilynne E. Jacobs, Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), regarding 117 vehicles that were imported from Canada by your client, Superior Auto Sales, Inc. (Superior). As described in your letter, and in prior correspondence with OVSC, these vehicles, which consisted of 1994 and 1995 Model Year Plymouth Acclaims, Dodge Spirits, and Mazda Protégés, were not equipped with automatic restraints in the front outboard passenger seating position, as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You nevertheless contend that all of these vehicles should be deemed in compliance with that standard, with the exception of seven Mazda Protégés that are the subject of separate correspondence.

To support this contention you cite paragraph S4.1.4.1 of the standard, which provides, in relevant part:

A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in non-compliance with this standard if its manufacturer establishes that it did not know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with this standard.

Your letter contends that Superior is a manufacturer within the meaning of this provision by virtue of the fact that it is a vehicle importer. Moreover, you claim that even though Superior exercised due care, it did not know that the vehicles in question did not comply with FMVSS No. 208. In support of this claim, you note that OVSC released the vehicles in question even though the conformity packages that Superior submitted for them included a vehicle identification number (VIN) deciphering chart that provided the means for the agency to ascertain that each of those vehicles was equipped with a driver side air bag and a passenger side manual seat belt.

To further support your claim that Superior did not have knowledge of the noncompliance in issue, you describe the standard as containing language "so obtuse (sic) as to defy understanding." You characterize "the complexity of the language" found in FMVSS No. 208 as "the very reason that NHTSA incorporated the 'due care' provisions of the Safety Act into the regulation." To support this contention, you cite language from the preamble of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard that was issued by NHTSA in 1985. That language states

The agency recognizes that because of the complexity of the requirements of Standard No. 208, manufacturers are concerned that the rule state that the due care provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . applies to compliance with [this] standard.

50 FR 14589, 14592 (April 12, 1985). You interpret this statement as representing NHTSA's "recogni[tion] at the outset that the language of Standard 208 was so complex that mistakes in interpretation were likely to occur" and that "it would be unfair to penalize affected parties who made such mistakes notwithstanding due care." Accordingly, you assert that the vehicles that Superior "imported in the exercise of due care and without knowledge of their nonconformity must . . . be deemed to be in compliance with Standard 208."

Contrary to your interpretation, NHTSA did not incorporate the due care provision of the Safety Act into FMVSS No. 208 to relieve manufacturers from liability for noncompliances resulting from mistaken interpretations of the standard's language. The agency instead added the due care provision to address a concern expressed by manufacturers, grounded on the belief (disputed by NHTSA) that there was excessive variability in FMVSS No. 208 crash test results, that a noncompliance might be determined to exist on the basis of a single test failure, even though the vast majority of similar vehicles actually complied. NHTSA stated its intention to amend the standard to incorporate the due care provision in the final rule reinstituting the automatic restraint requirements published at 49 FR 28962 on July 17, 1984. As reflected in the enclosed excerpt from that document (at 49 FR 29006), NHTSA was motivated to add the due care language to assure manufacturers

that the agency would exercise appropriate discretion in compliance cases based on apparent failures to satisfy the performance requirements of the standard in OVSC crash tests.

We agree that Superior is a "manufacturer" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) because it imports motor vehicles for resale. However, the due care language in FMVSS No. 208 cannot be relied upon by registered importers (RIs) to insulate themselves from liability for importing vehicles from Canada that do not comply with the standard. To properly exercise its responsibilities, an RI must be aware of the standards that apply to each of the vehicles that it imports and conform the vehicle to those standards when necessary. The principal difference between vehicles manufactured for the U.S. and the Canadian markets is that Canadian vehicles are not required to comply with the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208. For that reason, the only passenger cars manufactured for the Canadian market that NHTSA has determined to be eligible for importation into the United States are those manufactured before September 1, 1989, the date on which the automatic restraint requirements were extended to a manufacturer's entire passenger car production, or those manufactured after that date that are equipped with an automatic restraint system that complies with FMVSS No. 208. Before importing a vehicle from Canada manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, the RI must therefore ensure that it complies with the automatic restraint requirements in the same manner as FMVSS No. 208 allows for vehicles produced for the U.S. market on the vehicle's date of manufacture.

As a factual matter, we dispute your assertion that the operative language of FMVSS No. 208 is "complex" or "obtuse." It is clear from S4.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 208 that the authority to manufacture vehicles with a driver's side air bag and no automatic protection on the passenger side expired as of September 1, 1993 (i.e., it did not apply to model year 1994 or newer vehicles). Even if it could not discern those requirements from the language of the standard, Superior could have made appropriate inquiry with the vehicle's manufacturer or with NHTSA. Finally, if an RI is in fact confused as to the automatic restraint requirements that pertain to any given vehicle, it could not demonstrate that it exercised due care by importing the vehicle despite that confusion.

Your letter implies that Superior was misled by OVSC's "approval" of compliance packages that it submitted for vehicles that were not equipped with required passenger side automatic restraints. The conformity statements included in those packages contained Superior's certification that those vehicles were manufactured in compliance with FMVSS No. 208. OVSC's approval of the compliance packages was predicated on that certification by Superior. OVSC cannot be charged with knowledge that the vehicles it approved for release were not equipped with required automatic restraints simply because a VIN deciphering chart that would have revealed that information was included in the compliance packages. Given the thousands of compliance packages that it must process each month, OVSC cannot be expected to decipher every VIN to ensure that the RI's certification contains no inaccuracies. It is perverse to assert that merely because OVSC did not catch Superior's false statements, Superior is excused from having made them. Moreover, in each case, Superior's false certification preceded OVSC's release of the vehicle, so that release cannot have provided any basis for Superior's actions.

Your letter further cites NHTSA and Center for Auto Safety research reports for the proposition that automatic seat belts, the devices that Superior apparently would install in the vehicles in question in the event of a recall, are less safe than the manual seat belts with which those vehicles are now equipped. In light of these reports, you contend that it would be arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion for NHTSA to order a recall. On the contrary, it would be improper for the agency not to require compliance with the existing requirements of a standard in its administration of the vehicle importation program. FMVSS No. 208 requires that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 be equipped with passenger side automatic restraints regardless of whether they have a driver's side air bag. This requirement was adopted in a protracted rulemaking proceeding in which the agency solicited and addressed numerous comments from the public. The requirement for automatic restraints in both front outboard seating positions is buttressed by the action of Congress in enacting the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, section 2508(a)(1), which mandated that FMVSS No. 208 be amended to require air bags in those locations. (See 49 U.S.C. 30127.)

Your letter requests a hearing if NHTSA believes that Superior has not established that in the exercise of due care it did not have reason to know that the vehicles it imported were not in conformity with FMVSS No. 208. We have provided you with our analysis of this issue, as presented in your letter. Based on that analysis, it is unlikely that any further discussion would alter our opinion that the due care defense is unavailable to Superior and similarly situated RIs in this circumstance. Therefore, we decline to hold the hearing you have requested.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208

d:10/25/96

ID: 14248.ztv

Mr. Marcin A. Gorzkowski, P. Eng.
Compliance Engineer,
Motor Vehicle Safety Enforcement
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Transport Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Dear Mr. Gorzkowski:

We have received your letter of February 13, 1997, expressing concern that the intended functions of certain motor vehicle lamps and reflectors are not being met by manufacturers. You are specifically concerned about "separation of turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps, separation of reflex reflectors, and the installation of reflex reflectors or hazard warning lamps on movable parts of the vehicle."

With respect to spacing of lamps and reflectors, you believe that "[t]here seems to be a need for introduction of [an] acceptable range of distances from the edge of the vehicle where the reflex reflectors and turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps should be located. This range may be expressed either by an actual measurement or by a percentage related to the width of the vehicle."

As you recognize, this suggestion would have to be implemented through rulemaking. Both Federal and Candadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108 specify that turn signal/hazard warning lamps and rear reflex reflectors be located "as far apart as practicable." However, in point of fact, both standards specify that all front and rear lighting equipment required to be provided in pairs must be located "as far apart as practicable."

Literal compliance with this requirement could mean that lamps and reflectors would have to be stacked vertically at the extreme edges of a vehicle. But we have never sought to enforce the location requirements of Standard No. 108 in that manner.

We generally rely on the good faith of a manufacturer in determining that the location of any particular pair of lamps and reflectors is "as far apart as practicable." The manufacturer's certification of compliance of the vehicle represents, in part, its certification that its lamps and reflectors are located "as far apart as practicable." NHTSA has repeatedly stated in its interpretations that it will accept the manufacturer's certification unless that determination appears clearly erroneous. For example, where there is room on a truck or trailer rear header for identification lamps and these lamps are placed at bumper level, NHTSA will question the lower location and try to persuade the manufacturer to relocate them. Both Transport Canada and NHTSA have alerted Ford Motor Company to their concern that the front turn signal lamps on the 1996-97 Mercury Sable passenger cars are not as "far apart as practicable" because they are spaced farther apart on the similar companion car, the 1996-97 Ford Taurus. We agree with you that the Mercury design does not fulfill the intent of a turn signal spacing requirement.

The question, then, is whether it is appropriate for NHTSA to develop a more objective regulation on lamp spacing. The gathering of accident data is not sufficiently discriminant to ascribe causation of crashes involving passenger cars to lateral spacing of their lamps or reflectors. Thus, a logical rationale would have to be developed in support of a more explicit regulation for the horizontal spacing of lamps and reflectors, if NHTSA decides that the requirement of "as far apart as practicable" is inadequate regulatory language..

Your second concern is the location of certain lamps and reflectors on trunk lids. You cite NHTSA's interpretations that compliance is judged with the vehicle in its normal operating configuration (i.e., with doors, trunk lids, cargo hatches, etc. closed), and present situations in which lamps and reflectors mounted on the deck lid will not be seen when the lid is open.

As I recall, we have advised over the years that lamps such as stop and turn signals should not be placed on trunk lids, and that, if a two-compartment lamp is placed both on the trunk lid and the adjacent rear sheet metal, the lamp located on the sheet metal should alone comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108. My review of the standard shows that S5.3.1 requires lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to be "securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair." We will consider whether sufficient safety justification exists for proposing that no lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment be located on a trunk lid, door, panel, or other movable body part unless the regulated item complies with Standard No. 108 with the trunk lid, etc. in its fully open position, or unless an alternative fully-complying item is provided on the movable part.

As you recognize, any changes to respond to your concerns and the inconsistencies between interpretations of the U.S. and Canadian lighting standards would have to be implemented through rulemaking. NHTSA will carefully consider your suggestions and take the appropriate actions. We will coordinate any proposed regulatory changes with Transport Canada to ensure that any changes are harmonized by both countries. Harmonization with international standards is a stated policy of the United States.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
5/6/97

ID: aiam3595

Dear Mr. Cumming: This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification concernin the position of vehicles for testing under Safety Standards Nos. 212, 219, and 301. Specifically, you are concerned with a vehicle which is capable of height adjustment by manufacturer design, i.e., a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving.; The safety standards to which you refer do not specify a heigh adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set height. In fact, we have checked the agency's past interpretations for all three standards and determined that this question has never arisen. After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions. To save on testing costs, you should be able to determine the worst case position, particularly with regard to Standard No. 301, and test only in that position. Your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq*.) is to exercise due care to determine that your vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards.; I hope this has been fully responsive to your inquiry. Please contac Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-5.27

DATE: 12/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1971, in which you enclosed copies of drawings illustrating clearance and side marker lamps installed on several types of trucks and trailers in compliance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code and asked for our advice as to whether there are any conflicts with the Federal requirements.

There are several such conflicts, and our comments follow:

1. REQ BUL-3 SUPPLEMENT 1

(a) Page 2 - Standard No. 108 prescribes the general location of clearance lamps and side marker lamps without specifying tolerances. The first sentence of each of the paragraphs on clearance lamps and side marker lamps adequately reflect the Federal requirements. These general requirements of Standard No. 108 preempt the authority of a State to prescribe tolerance for alternate locations of the lamps and subsequent sentences in these paragraphs which do so are improper.

(b) Page 3 - Figure 3, Combination Clearance and Sidemarker Lamps, does not appear to properly illustrate the requirement that a clearance lamp be visible at an angle of 45 degrees to the right.

2. Truck tractors

(a) Statements appear frequently that front amber side marker lamps are "Not required on pre-1969 Tractors." This is incorrect; front amber side marker lamps are required on any truck tractor 80(Illegible Word) inches in overall width, manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

(b) Various figures illustrate truck tractors with red rear clearance and side marker lamps. It is unclear whether California requires truck tractors to be equipped with these lamps, or whether the figures illustrate acceptable counting locations if a vehicle is so equipped. Standard No. 108 provides that(Illegible Words) preemption provisions of the Vehicle(Illegible Words) to require them.

3. Clearance lamps

(a) The figures do not clearly illustrate whether the widest point of vehicles is the front fender or body (i.e. tank on tank trucks, flat bed on "dromedary" trucks and flat bed trucks, van on van body trucks, body on utility trucks). If the body is the widest point of the vehicle, amber clearance lamps must be mounted there, but if the widest point is at the front fenders, the clearance lamps must be mounted at that location. No alternate locations are permissible, though shown in your figures, and in any event, cab-mounted clearance lamps are inappropriate whether single or combined with another lamp.

(b) The widest point of a horse trailer is the fender, and clearance lamps must be mounted here, not on the body.

4. Logging dolly. Logging dollies are "pole trailers" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and are specifically excluded from Standard No. 108. Therefore, we have no comments on California's requirements.

5. Boat trailers

(a) Clearance lamps are not required if the trailer is less than 80 inches wide.

(b) A combination clearance lamp (amber to front, red to rear) is permitted, if it is located atop the fender, as an alternative to separate amber and red clearance lamps.

(c) The required location of the front amber side marker lamp for trailers (not shown on your figure) is "as far to the front as practicable," with a permissible location "as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue."

We are returning to you copies of the drawings you enclosed, marked to reflect our comments.

ID: nht71-3.46

DATE: 07/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1971, enclosing a copy of Mr. Shrake's memorandum "Seat Belts Required by July 1, 1971", copy attached.

We concur in your conclusion that the seat belt requirement does not apply to chassis-cabs, cabs, and vans, manufactured before July 1, 1971, and that, on or subsequent to that date, are completed as, or modified to become, motor homes. We concur also with the other points set out in the memorandum.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht91-6.12

DATE: September 30, 1991

FROM: W.R. Kittle -- Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Petition for Temporary Exemption; Low Emission Motor Vehicle; 49 CFR 555

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to D.E. Dawkins (A39; Part 555)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with offices at 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan 48288-1919, hereby petitions the NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the Chrysler TEVan, an electrically driven version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemption is sought for a one year period.

The Chrysler TEVan has been developed in cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute, Southern California Edison Company, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the United States Department of Energy. The acronym, TEVan, is derived from the expression, "T-115 Electric Van", where T-115 is the engineering model code for the Caravan/Voyager vehicles. TEVan is pronounced as if it were two words, "Tee Van".

The basis for this petition is the facilitation of the development of low-emission engine features. The TEVan is a low-emission motor vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The TEVan does not have an internal combustion engine. Instead, it has an electric motor propulsion system powered by nickel-iron batteries. As a result, it will emit air pollutants in amounts significantly below new motor vehicle standards applicable under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 f-1) at the time of its manufacture, and with respect to all other pollutants, it will meet the new motor vehicle standards applicable to it under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act at the time of its manufacture.

The TEVan is a Dodge Caravan in which the internal combustion engine, transmission, coolant system, manifold-vacuum-assisted power brakes, gasoline fuel system, and engine-driven hydraulically-assisted power steering system have been replaced by an electric drive motor, a nickel-iron battery pack, a micro-processor based battery management system, a controller-convertor-charger unit, a two-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission, and electric-motor-driven pumps for the vacuum power brakes and the hydraulically-assisted power steering. In addition, the original hot water heater/defroster unit has been replaced by a diesel fuel-burning unit. Since their manufacture, those that were equipped with the automatic transmission have been refitted with the manual transmission.

Based on certification testing of the Caravan, and the anticipated effect of the modifications above upon the vehicle, the TEVan complies with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with the considerations or exceptions indicated below.

FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

S3.1.2; TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT. The requirement for transmission braking effect is met by regenerative braking, in which the electric motor becomes a generator, recharging the batteries and dissipating energy in the process. Regenerative braking can be switched off at the option of the driver to restore steering control on slippery surfaces.

FMVSS 105 - Hydraulic Brake Systems

S5.1; SYSTEM BRAKE SYSTEMS. The performance of the service brake system is predicated on the use of the regenerative characteristic of the drive motor to augment the power-assisted hydraulic wheel brakes. The motor, driven through the transmission by the mass of the coasting vehicle, functions as a generator to dissipate energy through charging the drive batteries. In the performance tests of S5.1.1 - Stopping Distance, however, the transmission must be in neutral, and in the TEVan, that would preclude the contribution of regenerative braking. No tests have been conducted with the TEVan, however, it is our opinion that with regenerative braking, the stopping distance requirements would be met.

Further, in the test for evaluation of S5.1.4 - Fade and Recovery, the distance between the starting points of successive brake applications at 60 mph is 0.4 miles. The TEVan will not accelerate from 5 to 60 mph in that distance, so the test cannot be conducted as prescribed. Then too, the TEVan is considerably heavier than the parent vehicle. Nonetheless, we believe that if the test could be conducted as prescribed, and with regenerative braking, the fade and recovery requirements would be met or nearly met.

FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems

S4.2(a)-(c); GENERAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. The right end floor pan anchor sockets for the removable two-passenger second seat have been reduced in height below the floor pan to provide space for a portion of the battery pack. While the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages S4.2; STRENGTH. The modified right end floor pan anchor sockets discussed in FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems, above, must also transmit seat belt forces to the vehicle structure through seat-mounted anchorages.

Again, while the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting, and

FMVSS 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion

S5; REQUIREMENT. Windshield mounting and zone intrusion performance are ultimately determined by vehicle front structure crush characteristics.

The front structure of the base Caravan/Voyager, modified to support the

electric drivetrain components, is believed to be materially equivalent in strength to the original, however, a 30 mph barrier impact test has not been conducted to confirm compliance.

FMVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity

S5.5 - FUEL SPILLAGE: BARRIER CRASH, and S5.6 - FUEL SPILLAGE: ROLLOVER. A 1.6 gallon tank has been provided just behind the rear axle for the fuel used in the diesel fuel-burning heater/defroster. The integrity of the diesel fuel system has not been evaluated with fixed and moving barrier impact tests, however, it is believed that the system would comply with the spillage requirements if the vehicle were so tested.

If exempted, the TEVan would differ from the 1989 model Year Dodge Caravan vehicle from which it was derived in that the internal combustion engine, drivetrain, and engine-driven vehicle subsystems have been replaced by an electric traction motor, a complement of nickel-iron batteries, an electric controller, and certain electrically-driven vehicle subsystems. Changes have also been made in structural elements to accommodate the latter components. To assist in the review of this petition, a brochure describing the TEVan in greater detail has been provided as Attachment 1. The probable effect on the performance of the modified vehicle with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is described above.

Chrysler is not presently manufacturing the TEVan, but is manufacturing an improved version of the Dodge Caravan upon which it is based. The latter vehicle meets all applicable Federal Safety Standards.

Chrysler is not aware of any tests conducted with the TEVan in which it failed to meet a Safety Standard. Since only four vehicles have been or will be modified for field evaluation of this initial design, no testing for compliance is planned or anticipated.

While destructive compliance testing has not been conducted on any of these vehicles, Chrysler believes that their safety performance will be very like that of the Caravan/Voyager vehicle from which they were derived. While vehicle weight is much greater because of the batteries for the drive system, hydraulic brake system performance is augmented by regenerative braking. The internal combustion engine is no longer in place to share or transfer front impact forces, however, the electric motor and its controller take the place of the engine, at least in part. Similarly, the potential for fuel-fed fire is greatly reduced, first because of the nearly tenfold reduction in the size of the fuel tank, and secondly because less volatile diesel fuel is used instead of gasoline.

The exemption of these vehicles from the requirement to confirm performance with respect to the braking, crashworthiness, and post-crash standards will facilitate the development of the electric motor, controller, and battery for the next generation of the TEVan. That vehicle will be designed to comply with all Federal safety standards, to the extent that an electrically-powered vehicle can so comply.

The four vehicles that are the subject of this petition will not be brought into compliance with the Federal standards applicable to them in the 1989 model year by Chrysler. Provided an exemption is granted, one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation.

Not more than 2,500 exempted, first generation TEVans will be sold in any 12-month period for which an exemption may be granted. In fact, only four such vehicles were manufactured for test and evaluation.

The grant of the requested exemption would be in the public interest because it would:

o facilitate the field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle without unreasonably degrading the safety of that vehicle;-

o facilitate the development of a vehicle which could be very fuel-efficient in terms of its use of fossil fuels;

o accelerate the development of electrically-driven vehicles and related technology which could help to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Please direct all questions regarding this petition to Howard Willson of my staff at 313-956-6037.