Interpretation ID: nht92-9.44

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TO: Harry Thompson -- Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division, NHTSA; Barry Felrice -- Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking, NHTSA; Patricia Brescin -- Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Std.; Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Jim Simons -- Plans & Policy, NHTSA; Bob Hellmuth -- Director Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: Nick Bilello

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul N. Wagner (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clarify some questions revolving around the application of F.M.V.S.S. #208 to the light truck industry, primarily those built in MULTIPLE stages, such as van conversions.

Last year, our firm, and others, traveled to the Agency AND worked with the automotive companies to achieve compliance with the dynamic requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #208 for light trucks, for our part in the van and pick-up truck industry. This involved vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

In virtually all instances of communication during 1991 with the Agency, (including public forum contact with individuals such as your Mr. Bob Hellmuth), and the auto companies, the general response was that there would be NO EXTENSION in the application of dynamic testing (F.M.V.S.S. #208) of light trucks with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, effective 9/1/91.

Additionally, after proceeding with body-in-white sled testing, despite finding additional complications hampering the testing effort, our firm filed a petition with the Agency (copy attached), noting these and other problems occurring with light trucks manufactured in multiple stages. The petition itself is self-explanatory; however, it was promptly rejected as being untimely, among other things.

With this information, we proceeded with further sled AND barrier testing for compliance and liability reasons, with the research and testing costing nearly $200,000.00 in aggregate.

Now, five months after the submission of the attached petition, and three months after the Agency's rejection of said document, we have received notification (copy attached) from the trade group R.V.I.A. that indicates an extension is on the horizon.

Thus, in 1991, the general consensus from the Agency, the auto companies, R.V.I.A., N.V.C.A., and others, was that we must comply to the new requirements for all light trucks affected, with no extension possible. Now, in 1992, rumors of a possible extension are confirmed by the attached correspondence from R.V.I.A.

Please do not take this letter as a rejection of the safety aspects of F.M.V.S.S. #208, but as one of frustration of market perception. The problem at hand is not an extension, but the ultimate market confusion that exists, due to rumors and conflicting correspondence such as that enclosed.

One fair question that we believe we have is, will there or will there not be an extension of the F.M.V.S.S. #208 light truck requirements?? A timely response would be most helpful to curb the current market confusion.

There are many firms, such as Mark III Industries, and clients we work with, who have effectively put their compliance programs together in order to meet with the Agency's direction last year regarding F.M.V.S.S. #208. Many companies have hastily, but effectively, put their costly compliance programs in place, while others chose to complain and groan about F.M.V.S.S. #208, while ignoring its true safety attributes.

Arguments about F.M.V.S.S. #208 regarding light trucks can be presented at length, but what cannot be acceptable is confusion in the market regarding the status of this regulation.

We will not attempt to debate the merit of dynamic requirements for light trucks, nor will we argue over which trade group, if any, truly represents the van and truck conversion industry. We do believe, however, that because of our costly, good faith effort toward F.M.V.S.S. #208 compliance, we are entitled to a response concerning any extension of time on the above issue.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment (memorandum)

RVIA Recreation Vehicle Industry Association P.O. Box 2999 - 1896 Preston White Drive - Reston, Virginia 22090-0999 Telephone (703)620-6003 - Telefax (703)620-5071

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 17, 1992 TO: RVIA Members with 208 Interest FROM: Bruce A. Hopkins RE: NHTSA/RVIA Meeting - January 14, 1992

Automotive company representatives and the members of RVIA's FMVSS 208 Task Force and its technical subcommittee, met with key policy and enforcement officials of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to

discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on January 14 in Washington, DC.

RVIA requested the meeting to ask NHTSA officials to consider making effective dates for future amendments to FMVSS later for final stage manufacturers than for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.

Industry also wanted the opportunity to relate the substantial actions that have been taken to achieve compliance with the dynamic test requirements of 208 as well as the complex situations and problems that developed in the course of these efforts.

RVIA also requested a delay in the effective date of the already existing dynamic test requirements to FMVSS 208 until September 1, 1992. RVIA will file a formal petition for NHTSA's action.

RVIA feels that the meeting was very successful. Dave Humphreys said that NHTSA seems genuinely concerned about the problems our industry faces in complying with new FMVSS rules and is now fully aware of industry's compliance activities regarding dynamic testing and seemed please with these efforts. Humphreys expects NHTSA to grant both short and long term relief that will benefit the industry.

See the reverse side for the list of attendees.

NHTSA MEETING JANUARY 14, 1992

ATTENDEES

NHTSA Staff

Patricia Brescin Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Dan Cohen Rulemaking Barry Felrice Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking Jeff Giuseppe Office of vehicle Safety Comp. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Jim Simons Plans & Policy Harry Thompson Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division Ken Weinstein Ass't. Chief Counsel for Litigation Steve Wood Ass,t. Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

FMVSS 208 Task Force and the Technical Subcommittee

Dusty Dickeson Seats-N-Stuff Grant Farrand Starcraft Automotive Tim Hooley Goshen Cushion, Inc. Dennis Rice Flexsteel Ind., Inc. Dave Dygert Dygert Seating Andy Verbeski Compliance Group Cliff Wieland Wieland Designs

Automotive Companies

Mick Cave General Motors Dick Humphrey GM, EA Staff, Safety Al Slechter Chrysler Corp.

Legal Consultants

Larry Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Jerry Loftus, Esq. Jerome C. Loftus, PC

RVIA Staff

David J. Humphreys RVIA, President and General Counsel Bruce A. Hopkins RVIA, Vice President of Standards Ed Conway RVIA, Assistant General Counsel

Attachment

Petition to Redefine, Enhance or Amend Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, Chapter Five, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Title 49 (Text omitted)

Attachment

Letter dated 10/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Wagner. (Text omitted)