P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

11) ll-C-8 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:41 PM Sheet 11 of 79 
P.2 

r"*r. 

-t-D 

JUL 2 - i387 

•.'onnr;~hle Diane Steed 

AOr.iniBtrator 

Department of Transportation 

400 7th Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

~>,?xr :1s. i'-teeoz 

Thank you for your l^ct^r c-'i ...Tune Ll, 1987 in response to 

our reamist for consultation unri-^r Section 202(a)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act concernjng nafefcv implications of onboard 

refueling controls. «e appreciate the time and effort invested 

by both, you and your chaff reviawinq documents and providing. 

comments in this -ratter. !\!e .look forward to further 

consultation following the close of the public comment period 

on our proposal. 

As you know, "PA. -iocs ^ot intend to adopt requirements 

unless it is clear oat tbey o-=tn be :v,ot without degrading 

vehicle safety. Our .-.irai't safety analysis which you have 

reviewed has carefully analysed the known safety issues and 

found that no barrier to safe designs exists at present, given 

proper attention to safety factors. In fact, there are aspects 

of some approaches to refueling control which can act to 

improve overall fuel system safety. In light of the overall 

liability of manufacturers for the performance of their 

vehicles, ;*e believe that safety will be given careful 

consideration during the design of onboard controls. Thus, it 

appears to , us that onboard controls can i.->e adopted with no 

adverse effect on safety. 

We agree, as you stress in your letter, that leadtime is a 

key ingredient .in assuring the development of safe designs. 

Fuel system related fires, either crash or non-crash related, 

can pose a significant hazard, and manufacturers will require 

sufficient timft to both design and test new hardware. We 

appreciate your comments about the adequacy of our proposed two 

year leadtime period ami subsequent phase-in schedule and have 

taken note of the other safety-related NHTSA actions you have 

identified as impinqinc; on this same leadtime period. 

SDSB:Anderson:jwm:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X496:06/26/87:ID#:5087W 

Last reviewed by Charles Gray:7/1/87:AX701055 
P.3 

/> 

ive fullv expect that leadtime will ri-e a central iasue in 

our rulemaking. During the public participation process weshould receive detailed analyses of leadtime requirements from 

Kianufacturers. Based upon tnat inm.it ve '-.ill be ablp to update 

and revise our current leadtime ana]ypis. As we have 

indicated, although we are proposing a two year reauirement, we 

remain open to the possible need for a area ter amount of time, 

especially if added leadtime would clearly aic. in solving 

safety concerns. Our consideration of a phase-in of tne 

program is one possible approach to easino the burden on 

manufacturers. 

We also welcome your continued participation in resolution 

of the leadtime auestion. We will be in a much better position 

to resolve open leadtime issues after receiving detailed 

comments from manufacture rr> on this area. We fully expect that 

;-iy the end of the rulemaking process 'we will have resolved any 

differences Detween our two agencies over the proper amount of 

leadtime required for the safe implementation of onboard 

controls. 

Your letter also included a number of DOT staff comments 

on our draft safety assessment. V!e '.-'ere already aware of most 

of these matters through staff level contacts. Please be., 

assured that we are incorporating these comments into the final' 

version of our safety analysis. 

Sincerely* 

J5L\ (%^AAT^-

J. Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

8

 #,.,