ID: nht73-5.9

DATE: 10/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lear Siegler Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition for reconsideration of September 16, 1973, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets."

One of your requests was to extend the 30-day "comment period". This 30-day period for petitions for reconsideration is not a comment period, but is specified under NHTSA regulations at 49 CFR Part 553.35. Because of the relationship of these petitions to judicial review of a standard, the NHTSA generally does not extend this petition period.

The NHTSA is considering your petition on this subject, and a substantive response will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: nht73-6.1

DATE: 10/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Twin Coach Highway Products Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1973, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Following are answers to your four questions:

1. In a phone conversation with Richard Dyson on September 26 you explained that the window mechanism in question (which you mentioned you are no longer using) requires the release of both mechanisms before the window releases -- that is, before the window will no longer conform to the retention requirements in paragraph s5.1, s5.1.1, and s5.1.2 of the standard. In this case, only one of the force applications necessary to operate both mechanisms need differ by 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the original push-out motion of the emergency exit.

2. You are correct that the post in front of the window is not an obstruction so long as it permits passage of the ellipscid. However, when a post cuts a window opening into two segments as shown in your enclosed sketch, only the segment that passes the ellipscid, not the entire window opening, may count toward the measurement of total area specified in paragraph s5.2.

3. Although Figure 30 shows only the boundaries for high and low force access regions when the bus is upright (and when an obstacle is between the occupant and the unit), these same dimensions are these that are to be applied when the bus is overturned on either side, with the side on which the

bus is resting being considered as the floor. The transposition of these dimensions is illustrated to some extent in Figure 3D.

Whether or not both rear windows must be made into emergency exits rests solely on whether both windows are necessary for the bus to meet the unobstructed opening requirements, and the emergency exit release requirements of s5.3 and s5.5 when the bus is upright and overturned on either side.

4. The cut-off date for windows which do not comply with the standard is that of the date of manufacture of the bus in which the window is installed. All buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.

ID: nht73-6.10

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Explorer Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for Federal "safety specifications" that would apply to your three-wheeled motorcycle when it is licensed for use on the public roads.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles and their effective dates are: No. 103, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (January 1, 1969); No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems (January 1, 1974); and No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays (September 1, 1974). These standards are found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Under Part 567 a manufacturer of motor vehicles must affix a certification label to each product stating, among other things, that it meets all applicable Federal standards. This is the "sticker" to which you refer. As a manufacturer, Explorer is also subject to other regulations. I enclose an information sheet telling where you may obtain all these regulations.

I do not know the "Pace Setter III" that you refer to, but the Department does not "approve" vehicles for licensing. All that is legally required is that a manufacturer build and certify vehicles that conform to all applicable Federal safety standards. No Federal approval is necessary or given.

We have recently adopted a redefinition of "motorcycle" effective September 1, 1974. Three-wheeled motor vehicles that do not have both "a handlebar for steering and a seat that is straddled by

2 the driver" will no longer be classified as "motorcycles" effective September 1, 1974. Since the Explorer has both handlebars and a seat that is, in our view, straddled by the driver when his feet are on the foot rests, it remains a motorcycle under the new definition.

ENC.

EXPLORER, INC.

Gentlemen:

We are in the process of trying to get our three-wheel motorcycle licensed for the road. It seems that each state requires that they pass federal safety specifications. We would like to know how to find out what they are and have it tested at your convenience to prove that it does meet federal standards.

I understand that when a three-wheel motorcycle can be licensed, a sticker must be attached stating that it is designed for the road and meets all federal safety standards.

The EXPLORER 800R model recently has been licensed for the road in the state of Michigan. As you can see by the enclosed pictures, it has brakes on all three wheels, headlamp with high and low beam indicator light, turn signals, electric horn, brake and tail lamp, rear view mirror, and is powered by a 12 volt battery.

I understand that you recently approved the "PACE SETTER III" to be licensed for the road. We feel that the EXPLORER more than meets the safety requirements needed, and would like to prove this to you as soon as possible.

Any help you can give us to expedite this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Paul Marenda, Vice-President

P.S. Please send a copy of the federal requirements to EXPLORER ILLINOIS CORPORATION. 106 W. St. Paul St., Spring Valley, Illinois 61362

ID: nht73-6.11

DATE: 06/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Taylor Machine Works Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe of this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.

Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting your certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.

With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of the tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgement you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.

The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is not consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the

2 regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a Kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase "gross trailer weight rating" is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.

The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to the requirements of section 573.5 (b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.

Yours truly,

TAYLOR MACHINE WORKS, INC.

May 25, 1973

Michael Peskoe U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Peskoe:

Reference is to our conversation of May 23, wherein we asked for clarification on the Department of Transportation's vehicle certification laws.

We discussed, Taylor Machine Works is a manufacturer of dump trailers with but 90% of them used in the construction industry and about 10% of them in the refuse industry. We normally manufacture the trailer complete and in about 80% of our cases, we mount them on some user's new truck. Also, we mount the fifth wheel and the hydraulics for actuating the dump cylinder on the trailer.

Normally when we receive a new truck, they have with the vehicle a vehicle Manufacturer Document. I have enclosed a copy of such a document of a specific truck which happens to be an International Harvester Company truck #75797CGB14608. As you can see from this document, IH has placed a gross vehicle weight rating of 44,860 pounds on the truck tractor. The truck's front axle has a 10,860 rating and each of the tandems have a 17,000 pound rating. Also, this truck has affixed to the facing of the door on the operator's side a serial plate tag which states a gross vehicle weight rating of 44,860 pounds.

In weighting the truck, we found the following to be approximately the weights of the truck with the fifth wheel installed and ready to connect a trailer. (See diagram). The two tandem drive axle total 8,300 pounds, the steer axle of the truck 7,120 pounds. Upon connecting our trailer to this truck, we found the weights to be as follows: steer axle of the truck 7,290 pounds, truck tandem 10,640 pounds, and trailer tandem 7,470 pounds. (See attached sheets).

This was a typical installation that we make on our trailers. Since the rear axle rating is a total of 34,000 pounds, we feel that the vehicle will accept approximately 24,000 pounds on the king pin from the trailer and our componentry in the tandem axle has a rating of 36,000 pounds. Therefore, we would mark on the

2 certification plate that trailer T-3272 has a 60,000 pound rating. We would attach the marked certification plate to the trailer which shows the approximate king pin load of 24,000 pounds and tandem rating of 36,000 pounds and gross trailer weight rating of 60,000 pounds.

We understand from our conversation that if this truck does not have truck vehicle rating tag on it or the tractor, when we mount the fifth wheel we must put a vehicle certification plate similar to our Exhibit No. 1 which rate this truck showing what its capacity would be to the best of our knowledge or by contacting its manufacturer. Also, we would enter on a quarterly basis a report similar to the attached sample copy. We have taken this IH truck and trailer T-3272 and entered it on this report and would like for you to review if and make your suggestions.

Mr. Peskoe, if any of the above is not in keeping with what your office desires, please advise and we will make the necessary corrections. Also, on any other items concerning the certification of our product, we would be very grateful if you would make recommendations.

(Illegible word) you very much.

Very truly yours,

J. T. Monk Director of Engineering

Attachments

VEHICLE CERTIFICATION

EXHIBIT NO. 1

COMPLETED VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY: TAYLOR MACHINE WORKS, INC.

DATE OF COMPLETION: MAY, 1973

INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY: INTERNATIONAL, HARVESTER COMPANY

DATE INC. VEHICLE MFG FEB., 1973

GROSS VEH. WEIGHT RATING 44,860 LBS

GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING FRONT, 10, 860 LBS.

1st INC. 17,000 LBS.

REAR 17,000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOP VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN MAY, 1973

VEHICLE ID NUMBER: 75797CGB14608

TYPE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION: (X) TRUCK () BUS () MPV

Title 49 - Code of Federal Regulations Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Section 6 - Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations

International Harvestor Company 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 U.S.A. Date of Manufacture: 2-73 VIN: 75797CGB14608 GVWR: 44860 GAWR: Front Axle 10860 1st Intermediate 17000 2nd Intermediate Rear Axle 17000

Vehicle Type: *[Truck or MPV (Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle)]

TRUCK TRACTOR

The following listing of PWVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) apply to this incomplete vehicle as of the date shown above. This vehicle fully conforms to those standards preceded by a double asterisk (**) as of the date shown above.

* It is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer to specify on the certification label the proper vehicle type for which this vehicle is completed.

ID: nht73-6.12

DATE: 06/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: RVI Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1973, concerning a defect notification campaign involving furnaces manufactured by Suburban Manufacturing Company of Dayton, Tennessee, that have been used in recreational vehicles. You ask whether the obligation of the individual vehicle manufacturers under the Safety Act and applicable regulations may be met if the appropriate documents and notices are sent or filed by Suburban Manufacturing.

Suburban Manufacturing Company may prepare and submit to NHTSA or mail to purchasers, on behalf of the individual vehicle manufacturers, the information required by 49 CFR Part 573 "Defect Reports," 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification," and Section 113 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402). However, the requirements must be met as they apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles, and not manufacturers of equipment. Moreover, the vehicle manufacturers themselves will still be responsible if any of the documents filed or sent by Suburban Manufacturing Company fail to fully conform to all applicable requirements.

Sincerely yours,

May 18, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Larry:

At present a notification of defect campaign is being carried on in regard to NT32 furnaces manufactured by Suburban Manufacturing Company of Dayton, Tennessee. These furnaces have been sold to many different recreational vehicle manufacturers. We are pleased to note that Suburban Manufacturing Company has indicated a willingness to send all of the notices to purchasers, supply the parts required to repair the defect and bear the entire cost.

The only concern various manufacturers have expressed is that they want to be sure that their obligations under Section 113(d) of the Safety Act and Part 573 - Defect Reports - have been met if the necessary reports are filed by Suburban Manufacturing Company.

It would be appreciated if you would verify our belief that Suburban's reporting will be sufficient. I will undertake to convey your opinion to the RV companies involved.

Sincerely, David J. Humphreys RVI Washington Counsel

cc: Messrs. F. M. Radigan, P. Shrake, A. Spreen and W. Bigelow

ID: nht73-6.13

DATE: 12/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 6, 1973, requesting information on whether vehicle certification labels must be affixed by persons who for their own use install fifth wheels on chassis cabs.

The NHTSA takes the position that vehicles completed by persons for their own use must conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and be certified (by affixing the appropriate label) as conforming. The NHTSA considers the use of these vehicles to be an introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108 of the Safety Act. Persons who complete incomplete vehicles are final-stage manufacturers and all other regulations applicable to manufacturers (Parts 566, 573, and 577) apply to them.

November 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

We have run into a situation in which a trucking firm told us that they had received some information "from Washington" that they did not have to affix Vehicle Certification Labels to the chassis-cabs to which they installed fifth wheels. These truck-tractors would then be placed into their fleet for their own use.

While Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 provides that "no person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer to sell or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . " it would seem that part 568 of the current Certification regulations provides that any vehicle completed must be certified -- regardless of whether the vehicle is for sale or use by the Final-Stage Manufacturer.

We would appreciate your comments on this matter, as well as a statement regarding the Manufacturer Identification Reports and the various parts of the Defect Regulation. We are of the opinion that they have received some erroneous information, and would like to help them set the record straight.

Thank you.

THOMAS S. PIERATT Executive Secretary

ID: nht73-6.14

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Robins Davis & Lyons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Ilegible Text)

ROBINS. DAVIS & LYONS

March 16, 1973

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Washington, D. C.

Attn: Office of Performance Analysis

Re: Roste v Ford Our File: S72-0534

Gentlemen:

Our office represents a woman who was badly burned in an automobile accident when the Ford Cortina, in which she was a passenger, exploded upon rear-end impact with another automobile. I am interested in knowing whether or not there have been promulgated any Federal standards or regulations pertaining to the safety of gasoline tanks, appurtenances thereto, fuel tank filler hoses and connections, or the need for a protective fire wall between the fuel tank compartment and the rear of the automobile.

If you can refer me to any information pertaining to these questions or send to me copies of the appropriate data, I would be most appreciative. We will, of course, reimburse you for any costs incurred.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

John F. Eisberg

ID: nht73-6.15

DATE: 04/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1973, to Mr. Francis Armstrong, requesting various interpretations of Standards No. 208 and No. 209, with respect to safety belt systems.

Your first question, referenced to Figure No. 1 of the enclosure with your letter, relates to the required strength of the webbing in the case where two widths are connected together in an upper torso assembly. Under the webbing strength requirements of S4.2(b) of Standard No. 209, both pieces of webbing in the upper torso restraint must, individually, meet a 4,000 pound strength test. Under the assembly performance requirements of S5.3(b) of Standard NO. 209, a common pelvic and upper torso restraint must meet a 3,000 pound strength test. The latter would be true regardless of whether sewing or other means is used to make the belt assembly.

Your second question, referenced to Figure 2 of the enclosure, relates to the bolt strength required in the belt assembly anchorage. Under the provisions of S4.1(f), "equivalent hardware" is permissible in lieu of the 7/16" bolts. In such a case, the tests required under S4.3(c), as prescribed under S5.2(c), would be performed on the entire equivalent hardware, rather than or the individual components (bolts).

With respect to your third question, concerning the acceptability of belts that do not conform to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209, our reply is that under the present circumstances such webbing would not conform to either Standard No. 208 or

Standard No. 209. As a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ford v. NHTSA, belts installed under Standard No. 208's third option in 1973 (S4.1.2.3) will have to conform to Standard No. 209. Unless Standard No. 209 is amended with respect to its elongation requirements, therefore, energy absorbing webbing of the type you describe will not be permitted in 1974 cars.

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

February 24, 1973

Francis Armstrong Director, Office of Compliance Motor Vehicle Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention to; Mr. J. Gilkey Mr. G. Hunter

This is to request you to enlighten us upon the under-mentioned questions of ours so as to let us manufacture right seat belts assembly conforming to MVSS.

Please note, in this connection, that we have been manufacturing seat belts successfully for many years for installation in the cars destined to the United States.

Question # 1. (Please refer to the Figure # 1)

As shown on the Fig. #1, we made one shoulder belt connecting one webbing of 2" wide with another of 1" wide by pattern-stitching as the Figure. In this case, what breaking strength is required under S4.2(b) of MVSS 209? Is our belt taken as an assemblied webbings in spite of its connection by stitching? In other words, is 3,000 lbs. the required breaking strength for the said belt? How about in case the 2" webbing is connected with the 1"one with hardwares? Please clarify this case too.

Question # 2. (Please refer to the Figure # 2)

In compliance with the request of our customers, auto-manufacturers, we are preparing to use two bolts of smaller diameter than 7/16" for fastening to the anchorage. In this case, is each bolt is required to withstand the breaking strength of 5,000 lbs or more?

Question # 3.

We are planning to use an Energy Absorbent belt for 1974 cars. Our Energy Absorbent belt conforms to the requirement of MVSS 208's S.I. 1,000, but extends more than 40% at 2,500 lbs. In other words, the belt does not conform to MVSS 209. Can our belt be accepted by you, the U.S. authorities when shipped to the U.S. installed in the cars destined to the U.S. markets? Are we right in understanding that MVSS 208 takes precedence of MVSS 209 in this particular case?

Thanking you in advance for your kind guidance at your earliest convenience,

T. Hiramine, DIRECTOR

Enclosed.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

February 26, 1973

Francis Armstrong, Director

Office of Standards Enforcement National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention to; Mr. J. Gilkey Mr. G. Hunter

Enclosed please find the two copies of sketches numbered as Figure # 1 and Figure # 2.

Kindly take a trouble to check whether the two sheets of copied sketches attached to our letter to you dated February 24, 1973 were numbered as Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively.

We are afraid if we attached two copies of same number by mistake. If so, please replace the wrong ones by the correct ones enclosed herewith. Provided our originally attached ones were correct ones, please just destroy these copies enclosed herein.

Expressing our apologies for inconvenience caused by our oversight,

Sincerely yours

T. Hiramine

Enclosure.

(Graphics Omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

ID: nht73-6.16

DATE: 02/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1973, in which you asked us to confirm your "understanding that FMVSS No. 121 will not apply to fire-fighting vehicles until 1 September 1976, two years from the effective date." In general, you suggest that "we would expect to comply with FMVSS [for firefighting vehicles] within two years after the effective date or two years from the date of publication of the FMVSS, whichever date occurs later".

You have misread the relevant language of 49 CFR @571.8. That section provides that the effective date of a standard as applied to firefighting vehicles is "either 2 years after the date on which such standard or amendment is published in the Rules and Regulations section of the Federal Register, or the effective date specified in the notice, whichever is later", except as otherwise specified in the standard with reference to those vehicles. The alternatives are thus (a) 2 years after the publication date, or (b) the effective date, whichever is later -- not 2 years after the effective date, as you have read it.

Your reading would not be reasonable; since the effective date cannot be before the publication date, there would be no point to the alternative phrasing.

ID: nht73-6.17

DATE: 04/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1973, regarding the classification of the Volkswagen Model 181 (The VW Thing) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Based on a review of your letter and its enclosures, we accept your classification of the Model 181 as a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

April 2, 1973

Francis Armstrong, Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N41-22GSh

This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1973 directed to Mr. Crawford Shaw in which you requested the submission of satisfactory evidence that would support our classification of the Volkswagen Model 181 (The VW Thing) as a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle.

Upon receipt of your letter, we arranged for a meeting with you and your staff which was held in your office on March 29, 1973. At this meeting, we presented information relevant to the fact that the VW model 181 is equipped ". . . . with special features for occasional off-road operations . . . . " as is required by the definition of a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle. The following submission enumerates the features of the VW 181.

VEHICLE HISTORY

This vehicle was originally designed in the early 1960's under contract for the German Government. A major consideration in the design concept was the requirement by the army for rough terrain operation and associated vehicle specifications. The availability of the vehicle was originally limited to the army but subsequently, after sufficient production capacity was gained, availability was extended to the general public in Europe. Most recently, the entire world production has been centralized in Mexico and vehicles are exported back to Europe and also now to the U.S.A.

2

VEHICLE FEATURES

The following is a description of the vehicle including a comparison in some respects to our VW Beetle models so as to differentiate between typical passenger car specifications.

The BODY DESIGN is both rugged and functional, void of cosmetic details, with maximum consideration given to the extremes of hard usage found off road rather than to comfort and decor. The sloping front hood provides excellent forward visibility, an aid in negotiating hill crests. Generous clearance between the fenders and the tires is provided for accommodating extreme suspension travel and preventing entrapment of foreign objects. A folding soft top, removable side curtains and a folding windshield provide for operation in extremes of weather and possibly for negotiating areas of minimal overhead clearance. The folding feature of the rear seats provide a compartment of seventeen cubic feet capacity for cargo carrying.

Special off-road features are:

1. Standard tires of 185 R 14 M & S (Mud and Snow) with tube mounted to a five inch wide rim. The coarse tread profile provides versatility on all surface types. This compares to our normal Beetle tire of 6.00x150, tubeless, mounted to a 4 1/2 inch rim.

2. Ground clearance of 8.1 inches as compared to normal Beetle dimension of 5.9". For additional comparison our VW 412 model has a ground clearance of 5.3" and typical domestic models average approximately 5.0". Ground clearance of competitive off-road vehicles is in the range of 7 to 8".

3. Angle of Approach of 36 degrees and Angle of Departure of 31 degrees gives favorable grade negotiating ability without interference in the area of the vehicle overhang. For both domestic and import passenger cars, the angle of approach is in the range of 17 degrees to 25 degrees and the angle of departure from 11 degrees to 21 degrees.

3

4. An additional specification, unique to this model, is the "Wading or Fording Depth" which is 15.6 inches. This dimension constitutes the water depth through which this vehicle can be driven without danger. Typical passenger cars are not capable of such activity nor is such a dimension specified.

5. An engine protection shield is provided under the vehicle to minimize the chance of damage in the lower crankcase area. Also, an additional shield is provided for the Exhaust Gas Pecirculation filter, a part of the emission control system provided for the U.S.A. model.

6. Towing eyes are provided, mounted in the bumper, two front and two rear, for attachment of a tow line.

7. The overall Transmission/Final Drive gear ratios are lower as compared to the Beetle for improved low speed performance. Hill climbing ability is approximately 15% improved over that of the Beetle, measured on a paved roadway.

8. The chassis employed is a derivative of our platform design, however, reinforcement in the area of the suspension mounting is added. Reinforcement struts from the front torsion tubes to the chassis prevent damage in high load conditions. The front and rear axle loads are respectively 1212/1764 lb. as compared to 1080/1609 lb. of the Beetle.

9. The engine equipped is identical to that of our Beetle model except for minor changes in emission control techniques. However, the air cleaner is a very large capacity oil bath type which aids in reducing dust intake in off-road activities.

Enclosed for your information is a List of Technical Specifications (Exhibit 1) and a copy of the Owner's Manual (Exhibit 2) for the U.S.A. model 181.

4

In our meeting with you, some discussion centered around the providing of four-wheel drive in an off-road vehicle. In the VW 181 with its low curb weight (1995 lb.), rear weight bias, and four-wheel independent suspension, we find no need for four-wheel drive. In our own comparative research, we have in some instances found the 181 to have a distinct advantage over other, much heavier, four-wheel drive vehicles. Also, it is interesting to note that vehicles such as the Chevrolet Blazer, IHC Scout and the Jeep DJ-5 are available with two wheel drive standard and four-wheel drive optional at extra cost.

Additionally of interest, the National Off Road Racing Association (NORRA) is a sanctioning body of many off road race events in the U.S., including that taking place in the Baja area of Lower California. They have clearly recognized the respective capabilities of both two wheel and four wheel drive vehicles by providing competitive classes for both.

Enclosed is a copy of an article that was published in the March 1973 issue of MOTOR TREND Magazine (Exhibit 3). The thoughts of the writers illustrate the capabilities of the vehicle and only illuminate the enthusiasm that has been and will be generated by this vehicle inthe off-road, recreational vehicle market.

In a report of the National Traffic Safety Agency on the development of the initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard published in Washington, D. C. on March 17, 1967, the Agency set forth the history of its standard setting process and the specific considerations that entered into the selection of the options that were ultimately incorporated into the law. As in many other standard areas, the Agency felt that a number of options were open to it in dealing with the problems presented by special purpose vehicles. The report of March 17 records the discussions within the Agency (Exhibit 4).

It is fair to conclude, in our opinion, that by introducing the definition of MPV, the Agency recognized that some passenger type vehicles present special problem in meeting the passenger car standards and should, therefore, not be required to comply with all of them. The report also makes it clear that the Agency is thinking primarily of jeep and van type vehicle that would fall into that category since both are essentially used as passenger cars but have also features that make them suitable for "carrying of goods" or "cross-country travel over rough terrain."

5

You have also requested clarification of the text of the certification label. We have been informed by the factory that the label text does contain the proper reference to "Gross Axle Weight Rating" and "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating". We do not have a sample of the actual certification label at this time, but will forward one to you shortly. For reference at this time, page two of the enclosed Owner's Manual contains a facsimile of the certification label as it will appear in the vehicle.

In conclusion, the facts set forth herein firmly support our classification of the VW model 181 as a Multipurpose passenger vehicle, in that it is equipped with special features for occasional off-road operations. Competitive vehicles, as Jeeps, Land Rovers, and Broncos may be slightly different from the model 181 in their configurations and offer four wheel drive as an extra cost option, but are very much identical to the model 181 in terms of performance and suitability for off-road use.

We look forward to receiving your early reply and extend the invitation to completely examine an actual vehicle, at your convenience, at our facility in Englewood Cliffs. If any additional questions should arise, please contact me directly by telephone at the number below.

Sincerely yours,

Guenter Storbeck

[Enclosures Omitted.]