ID: nht73-4.47

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: SCARTI

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, to the Administrator.

The exemption provided vehicles with a curb weight of 1,000 pounds or less will cease to exist as of January 1, 1974, and lightweight vehicles manufactured on or after that date will be required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to their vehicle category, e.g. passenger cars.

Under the circumstances you indicate, you would be the final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 of our regulations. We refer you specifically to sections 567.5 and 568.6 of those regulations.

ID: nht73-4.48

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ralph Nader & Carl E. Nash

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge your letter of July 23, 1973, in which you protested against the categorization of the Volkswagen "Thing" as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

In light of the information you have provided, I have asked my people to review the situation and, as soon as they have presented their views to me for my consideration, I will be back in touch with you.

I certainly appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention.

SINCERELY,

July 23, 1973

James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volkswagen of America, importers of the "most hazardous car currently in use in significant numbers in the United States,"* the Volkswagen Beetle, has outdone itself. It has introduced into the American market a passenger car so lacking in crashworthiness as to become a serious challenger to the earlier Beetles for the dubious distinction of being the most unsafe car in America.

* Center for Auto Safety, Small -- On Safety, Grossman Publishers, New York, 1972, p. 85.

Volkswagen's new offering to highway casualties is a four door, four passenger convertible which they call "The Thing." "The Thing" is built on a Volkswagen Beetle chassis just as is their Karmann Ghia model, but unlike the Karmann Ghia, "The Thing" doesn't even pretend to meet many of the required applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (MVSS). For example, "The Thing" does not meet the following standards:

114 Theft Protection (does not have a warning device indicating that the key has been left in the ignition when the driver's door is opened)

115 Vehicle Identification Number (does not have the VIN located in the required places)

202 Head Restraints (does not have any head restraints)

208 Occupant Crash Protection (does not have an automatic locking retractor for the lap belts nor a warning device for non-use of belts in occupied front seats) 214 Side Door Strength (the doors appear to have virtually no crush resistance and the hinges are not only flimsy, they are designed to separate if the door is lifted)

In addition, "The Thing" does not appear to meet the following applicable MVSS either:

109 New(Illegible Word) Tires (the tires are truck type tires which have probably not been tested against this standard)

110 Tire Selection and Rims (if the tires do not meet MVSS 109, the vehicle does not meet this standard)

201 Occupant Protection from Interior Impact (there is little more than a plastic cloth covering on the upper surface of the dash panel)

212 Windshield Mounting (the windshield folds forward and it is not clear whether it would meet this standard)

215 Exterior Protection (the bumpers are not of the energy absorbing type, so that it is not clear whether it would protect the safety related components of the car in the required low speed crashes)

The safety of occupants of the "The Thing" is further compromised by its complete lack of rollover protection, of upper torso restraint, and of protection against occupant ejection. Although these items are not specifically required by the present inadequate safety standards for convertibles, they are technologically feasible at low cost and should have been included in the design of "The Thing" out of an elementary respect for human life and limb.

Volkswagen of America is irresponsibly attempting to create a wider loophole in the motor vehicle safety standards in a flagrant violation of the law. That loophole is the classification allowed for certain passenger carrying vehicles as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" which are defined as:

A motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles are exempted from some of the motor vehicle safety standards, particularly the crash standards as noted above. Since "The Thing" is constructed on a VW automobile chassis, Volkswagen claims that it meets the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of its special features for off-road use. According to their advertising brochure, these special features are the following:

"Skid Plates. Specially designed to protect protruding engine parts. Very important when operating in off-road conditions." [a feature also of the VW Beetle]

"Body Panels. Reinforced heavy gauge steel for rough treatment from off-road driving." [the Beetle also has body panels of heavy gauge steel] "Trailing arm suspension. Springing by rugged torsion bars. Torsion bars enclosed in a tubular casing to protect against off-road obstacles. Stabilizer bar maximizes road holding." [the suspension is identical with that of the Beetle]

"High Ground Clearance combined with short overhang front and rear makes "The Thing" the ideal car for rough terrain and bad roads. (With its smooth platform type chassis, the control cables rods and brakelines are well protected.)" [the ground clearance is only a couple of inches more than that of the Beetle, and the chassis is otherwise identical to that of the Beetle]

"Front and Rear Bumpers. Rugged, heavy duty bumpers with tow-eyes. Stands the abuse of off road driving." [the Beetle also has bumpers]

"Windshield. When the top is open, the windshield can be folded forward and rested in retaining clips located on the front hood. For off-road driving only."

"Removable Doors. For off-road driving only. Just release retaining spring and lift doors up and off hinges. Storage compartment in the door panels."

"Sloping Hood. Designed so that you can see more of what's ahead. A must when travelling the hills and dunes." [the Beetle also has a sloping hood]

In addition to the specific claims for "The Thing" the advertising for "The Thing" shows it in a number of off-road activities such as driving in sand dunes, on the beach, in water, and through fields. A close look at the so-called "special features" of the new VW shows that most of them are either not relevant to off-road operation (such as the removable doors and folding windshield) or are features taken directly from the VW Beetle from which it was derived. Thus the only special features on "The Thing" are the high ground clearance and the tow-eyes, features which could be built into a standard Beetle at virtually no cost. These special features are hardly sufficient to allow Volkswagen to qualify "The Thing" as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

The advertising for "The Thing" even refers to it as a car: "At last, there's one car that's good for more than one thing." [emphasis added]

If Volkswagen of America is allowed to import and sell this car as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, other manufacturers will exploit this widened loophole to circumvent some of the most important safety standards merely by adding a trivial special feature or two to its normal passenger cars to avoid compliance with the passenger car standards which do not apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Recently the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration to eliminate one of the major loopholes in the motor vehicle safety standards. They asked for the elimination of the differential application of the MVSS to multipurpose passenger vehicles and light trucks compared with passenger cars. This petition has our full support. The need for reform of these standards has been amplified with the introduction of "The Thing" into the American market.

More immediately, we urge you to enjoin further importation distribution, and sales of "The Thing" under the authority of 15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a) until these vehicles can be brought into compliance with all applicable standards for passenger cars and that you require the recall of all of these vehicles which are in consumers' hands for retrofitting to meet these standards.

It is absolutely unconscionable that a vehicle so lacking in rudimentary occupant crash protection be marketed, although people have come to expect such irresponsibility from this vehicle manufacturer and its American subsidiary. "The Thing" is completely lacking in(Illegible Word) protection and protection against occupant ejection despite the well-known propensity of Volkswagens to overturn and despite the special hazards of overturning in off-road operations. Even a minor crash in "The Thing" would be likely to produce serious injury if not death to its occupants. To protect those members of the public who are unwittingly buying these disasters, you must take immediate action. That Volkswagen has come this far with "The Thing" is a reflection of its disrespect for the unused authority of your agency -- a disrespect which your predecessors encouraged by their non-enforcement of the law and the non-strengthening of of its standards.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Carl E. Nash

cc: Senator Warren G. Magnuson Senator Vance Hartke Senator Ted Stevens Representative Harley O. Staggers Representative John E. Moss Secretary Claude S. Brinegar

ID: nht73-4.49

DATE: 08/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adams Rite Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your July 25, 1973, request for copies of the Federal regulations concerning door locks and latches.

Federal Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, is enclosed. It regulates passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. These categories include ambulances and "motor homes", which are self-propelled units with sleeping accommodations, generally constructed on a light truck chassis. Most other "mobile homes" are not self-propelled and they qualify as trailers, which are not subject to this standard.

For your information, paragraph 9.1.2 of Ambulance Design Criteria has also been enclosed. This publication specifies the criteria which an ambulance must meet to qualify for Federal funding under the Highway Safety Program @ 402.

ENCS.

ADAMS RITE PRODUCTS, INC.

July 25, 1973

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Adams Rite Products manufactures locks and latches used on commercial aircraft. We have been receiving many inquiries from mobile home builders and ambulance fabricators to supply latches that meet federal safety requirements. To date we have been unable to obtain copies of these regulations.

Please forward two copies each of the regulations governing our type of equipment. If this is not under your jurisdiction, would you please forward this letter to the proper agency or notify us of the correct address.

Robert B. Hirsch Marketing, Technical Staff

ID: nht73-4.5

DATE: 04/10/73

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

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask two questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacement parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are no requirements for the certification or replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements that manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that "due care" was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.

It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or not subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the

manufacturer or the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which the defect may exist. A manufacturer who has such records will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.

ID: nht73-4.50

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Meteor Works

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 5, 1973, you express two concerns about the treatment of multipurpose passenger vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

Your first concern is that the standards to be issued under the act will apply to all passenger motor vehicles, and will include multipurpose passenger vehicles unless the agency expressly exempts them. As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the new bumper standard, we are proposing to exempt multipurpose passenger vehicles from the initial standard. The continuance of this exemption depends on a variety of considerations, and we would appreciate the benefit of your views on the subject.

Your second concern is that the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in the safety standards (49 CFR 571.3(b)) differs from the definition of the same term in the Cost Savings Act. Although the definitions are fundamentally similar, the safety standards definition limits the MPV category to vehicles designed to carry 10 persons or less, while the Cost Savings Act definition includes somewhat larger vehicles, up to a capacity of 12 persons. We do not foresee any problems as a result of this difference, but if problems arise, it would be possible through rulemaking to restrict the applicability of a cost savings standard to MPV's having a capacity of 10 persons.

ENC.

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

5 Jul 1973

Rover British Leyland UK Ltd manufacturers the Land Rover multi-purpose passenger vehicle which is sold in the United States by British Leyland Motors Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, New Jersey.

The Land Rover is designed to operate on and off road and to carry special equipment and is therefore incapable of meeting some of the requirements of passenger cars, for example bumper heights, without impairment of its special performance capabilities. This fact is recognised in the differential application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. We wish to ensure that a clear distinction between these two classes of vehicle is made and continue to be made and for this reason we are concerned that the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act adopts a different definition for multi-purpose passenger vehicle from that adopted in Part 371 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We quote from the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act "(1) The term "passenger motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power, designed for carrying twelve persons or less, except (A) a motorcycle or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

(2) The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a passenger motor vehicle which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

and from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards "Passenger car" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

It is obvious that the two definitions are different although the vehicles to be defined are the same.

Our concern is that the term "multi-purpose passenger vehicle" in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act is embraced by the term "passenger motor vehicle". Thus any requirements written under this Act for a "passenger motor vehicle" apply automatically to a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle" unless the latter is specifically exempted. Such exemption is expected to be necessary in consequence of the different purpose for which the vehicles are designed.

Secondly the Seating capacity used in the definitions is 12 persons or less in the case of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 10 persons or less in the case of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The most satisfactory solution would be for the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act to adopt the definitions of "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" and "Passenger Car" of Part 371 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if however such an administrative solution is not possible perhaps NHTSA would consider seeking a technical amendment to work this out.

We would be pleased to receive your comments on this proposal and particularly if we have to take any further action to request such an amendment or how the different definitions will be interpreted.

C J GOODE SAFETY CO-ORDINATOR (PASSENGER CARS)

ID: nht73-4.6

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting our view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.

On page 2, under the heading, "Does a Retread Have to Pass All These Tests", you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, "How Expensive Could Testing Get?", you quote figures of $ 250.00 to $ 400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance tests, and while there are other laboratory tests involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.

On page 3, under the heading, "What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?", you state, "If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed." Notification of defects to first purchasers however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the Act, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.

On page 4, under the heading, "Must You Submit Information On Defects and Failures?": Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirement applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.

On page 4, under "What Casing Controls are Required?", you indicate that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, "May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?". This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.

On page 4, under the heading, "What are Restrictions on Good Casings?", you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol "DOT" must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.

On page 5, under the heading, "Should We Use Affixed Labels or Permanent Molding On Tire?", the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.

On page 6, under the heading, "Is Any Provision Made For Sizing Difference in Retreads?", you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirement by only 3%(Illegible Word) of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.

Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentially correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.

ID: nht73-4.7

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1973, in which you ask whether, if a retreaded tire cannot meet the dimensional requirements for its original casing size, it can be considered as and labeled with a smaller size, if it meets the dimensional requirements for the smaller size.

S5.1.4 of Standard No. 117 prohibits a retread tire from having a size designation, maximum load rating, or maximum inflation pressure greater than that originally specified on the casing. It does not prohibit a retreaded tire from having a smaller size than its casing, as long as the retreaded tire meets all the requirements for its labeled size designation.

ID: nht73-4.8

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1973, requesting confirmation of your understanding that automobile manufacturers may continue to use glazing materials manufactured before April 1, 1973, that do not conform to the recent amendment to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", effective on that date, in motor vehicles manufactured after that date.

Standard No. 205, an "equipment standard", applies to glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. It does not apply directly to vehicles in which such materials are used. As a consequence, a vehicle manufacturer may use glazing materials that do not conform to Standard No. 205 as it exists on the date the vehicle is manufactured. The glazing material must, however, conform to the standard as it exists on the date that the material is manufactured.

ID: nht73-4.9

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hyland Manufacturing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether the date a vehicle is completed, with reference to the date of manufacture placed on the vehicle certification label, is the date a vehicle comes off the "main production line" or the date it comes out of the "final finish production area".

On this question we are willing, in light of the wide variety of possible factual situations, to let a manufacturer use his own discretion within reasonable limits. As you have described your situation, either date may be used, up to the point where the last physical operations are completed. The "final quality control checkout", however, would appear to be an operation taking place after the manufacture as we normally understand it is completed.

ID: nht73-5.1

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request of July 18, 1973, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration undertake an investigation of possible odometer tampering on a vehicle purchased by Mr. Fulton Y. Roberts of Tallahassee.

There are no criminal penalties for violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. Remedies for violation of the odometer requirements are of two types. In the case of repeated violations, the United States Attorney may seek injunctive relief against further violations. In the case of a violation which has already occurred, the remedy is a private civil action by the defrauded party. For this reason, the NHTSA does not normally investigate incidents such as this.

Mr. Roberts should be advised that he may be able to sue for $ 1,500 without proof of damages, or possibly more if he can prove damages.

Mr. Roberts may wish to consult an attorney in this matter. The applicable provisions of the Act are enclosed.