ID: 2913yy

DS America, Inc.
5110 Tollview Drive
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

Gentlemen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "l990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section l08 [1397], subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/Ref. 59l d:4/l/9l

ID: nht90-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM D. FALCON -- COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVE CROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETT S

TEXT: This responds to your letter to our agency concerning your law enforcement standard (71.4.1) for an interior partition you call a "safety barrier." I regret the delay in responding.

The copy of 71.4.1 you provided states: "Vehicles used primarily for transporting prisoners (80 percent of their use) should have the driver separated from the prisoner by a safety barrier." The "commentary" to 71.4.1 states that, "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy gauge plastic to prevent the prisoner from having access to the driver's compartment . . ." Mr. Steven Crowell wrote you last year suggesting that this commentary should be revised to state: "The safety barrier must be one which has had a label or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable" Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). Mr. Crowell believes such certification is required by Federal law, and apparently bases this on our September 13, 19 85 letter to him. You ask whether his understanding is correct.

Mr. Crowell is not entirely correct in his understanding of our certification requirements. Our regulations do not generally require materials in safety barriers to be certified, except for glazing materials in barriers. Standard No. 205, Glazing Mater ials, applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used for an interior partition. The standard does not require labels or tags to certify the compliance of the glazing material with it. However, the standard does require that glazing material in a barrier must bear a mark to certify compliance with the standard. Standard No. 205 is the only FMVSS that applies directly to interior partitions (and only if the partition contains glazing material). There is no other FMVSS to which the partition itself would be certified.

Since glazing material in safety barriers need not be certified by labels or tags, and because safety barriers made from materials other than glazing materials are not certified under Federal law, we believe 71.4.1's seeking to require affixing a certifi cation label or tag on the barriers may engender confusion about NHTSA's requirements. We note also

that there is no Federal requirement for persons to certify modifications made to used vehicles. Therefore, we recommend against 71.4.1's seeking to require certifications in the form of labels or tags affixed to safety barriers installed in new or used vehicles.

However, we agree with Mr. Crowell that safety barriers should be installed in a safe manner, and believe that our regulations promote this to the extent possible under the Vehicle Safety Act. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a partiti on as original equipment (prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer), the person making the installation would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify (by attaching a label to the vehicle) that the vehicle complies with all applic able FMVSS's. These FMVSS's include the standards for head restraints (Standard 202), interior impact protection (201), rearview mirrors (111), and crash protection (208).

We know of no reason why a suitable partition can't be developed which could be placed in a vehicle equipped with head restraints and shoulder belts. Further, it does not seem to be a difficult matter for the barrier to be installed so that the vehicle would meet Standard 111's requirements for rearview mirrors.

On the other hand, installation of the barrier could interfere with the compliance of the back of the front seat with Standard 201 (copy enclosed). Paragraph S3.2 of that standard sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to prot ect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. The partition design should be capable of meeting Standard 201's requirements for energy absorption and should not be hazardous to head impact.

If the safety barrier were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation if he knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of th e vehicle with any safety standard. This prohibition is contained in @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal moto r vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the safety barrier you described, also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under @ 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers a bout safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. The Safety Act imposes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation upon any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in i ts motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

In view of the fact that a police department may alter its own vehicles without regard to @ 108(a)(2)(A), we believe Mr. Crowell might be suggesting that 71.4.1 recommend that the safety barrier should be installed in a manner that does not negatively af fect the compliance of the vehicle with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA generally encourages vehicle owners not to remove safety equipment or otherwise alter their vehicles if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, while we do n ot agree with Mr. Crowell that you should seek to require affixed certification labels or tags for barriers, we agree that installation of the barrier should be done in a manner that avoids degrading the overall safety of the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/87

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The undersigned represents United Tool and Stamping, Inc., a component supplier for seating systems used in motor vehicles, particularly recreational vehicles (motor homes). FMVSS 207 establishes a standard or performance requirements, using terminology such as "failure" or "shall withstand the following forces". My question is, what is NHTSA's current interpretation of what constitutes a "failure" or inability to "withstand forces".

It is my understanding from talking with various engineers, including Mr. Stan Fray from TRC of Ohio, who I understand performs some testing for NHTSA, that the currently accepted level of performance or definition of failure is that the seat must not se parate from the floor when the test forces are applied, although it may bend or deform. To state it another way, the seat may give, but must not break free from the floor.

Miss Diedre Hahn has indicated the proper way to obtain the answer to this question is to supply you with the question in writing. I would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Respectfully,

ID: nht90-3.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Dean A. Palius--Program Manager, VIA Systems

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to D.A. Palius (A36; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is written pursuant to our conversation this date regarding requirements for tow road length in the performance of occupant crash protection tests conducted in accordance with FMVSS No. 208.

As I stated to you on the phone, Via Systems is a manufacturer of automotive safety testing equipment. Via has supplied such products to the U.S. automotive industry for the past twenty (20) years. In reviewing a recent Via proposal for a crash test fa cility, a potential customer raised the issue of whether or not there was a specific legal requirement for a tow road to be 500 feet in length per the OVSC Laboratory test procedures, section 12.5. We indicated to the customer that FMVSS No. 208 only sp ecified the speed at which the test had to be performed. The length of the tow road was strictly a determination to be made by the manufacturer. We further stated that the OVSC procedures were utilized by that lab and others conducting tests specifical ly on behalf of the government. The procedures were not designed for manufacturer certifications and were developed for equipment specific to OVSC. After providing the above discussed information and a copy of FMVSS No. 208 to the client, the client co ntinues to show some discomfort regarding the legal mandate.

Pursuant to our conversation today, you have indicated that your office would issue a written opinion indicating that there is no legal requirement regarding tow road length. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: 86-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Grace Cheng -- Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center (Taiwan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Grace Cheng Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 330 REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicle with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 safety belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Dear Sirs;

It is so kind of you to solve our continuous inquiries. Here we would like to ask you one question as follows:

In regard to FMVSS 208, if we choose the third option S4.1.2.3.1(a) to equipped our cars with type 2 seat belt assemblies (nondetachable) that conform to FMVSS 209, then should our cars still be required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S 5.1 in a perpendicular impact?

Please answer us sooner and it will be highly appreciated.

Librarian Grace Cheng

ID: nht79-3.49

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1979, letter asking a question concerning Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention. You ask whether paragraph S5.4.2.1(a) permits the parallelepiped device to compress the seat cushion when it is inserted in a school bus emergency exit in accordance with the test procedures of the standard. The answer to your question is no.

Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a) states that each rear emergency exit must provide "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped device . . ." If the parallelepiped device compresses the seat cushion while being inserted in the bus, its passage is not unobstructed as required by the standard. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that the device must enter the vehicle without compressing the seat cushion.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

July 20, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Subject FMVSS #217, Section - S5.4.2.1(a)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In reference to the above section of the standard, we quote in part: "In the case of a rear emergency door, an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped . . . . ."

In a case where the parallelepiped is inserted into the opening. The result is that the parallelepiped compresses the seat cushioning foam. Question, does the opening comply with FMVSS 217 (S5.4.2.1(a))?

Thanking you in advance, I remain.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht88-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: M. IWASE -- MANAGER TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF TAIL & STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/30/80 TO DIETMAR M HAENCHEN FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: Dear Sir;

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We, Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd., would like you to advise us about the tail & stop lamp as shown below;

(DRAWING OMITTED)

1. Lamp "A" having function of tail & stop lamp is fitted onto the moving vehicle part (trank lid, etc.).

2. Lamp "A" meets the min./max. values for both functions of tail & stop specified in FMVSS No. 108 at a design attitude when the moving part is closed.

It is designed that vehicle be driven with its trank lid closed. Therefore, Lamp "A" installed on moving part should be permissible, we think.

Question:

1. Whether such a tail & stop lamp fitted onto moving vehicle part could be permissible or not under FMVSS No. 108.

2. If Lamp "A" is turn signal lamp instead of tail & stop lamp, how about the permission under FMVSS No. 108.

Again, thanking you and awaiting your prompt reply, we remain,

With our best regards,

Yours very truly,

ID: 77-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/06/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ellcon National, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 2, 1977, letter concerning the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to a thermopane driver's window in a bus.

In response to your first question, the window to which you refer is required to comply with the requirements of the standard. The fact that it is a driver's window does not exempt it from the coverage of the standard.

Your second question asks how to test thermopane glazing. According to our enforcement staff, testing of thermopane windows can be conducted using the same criteria used for other window glazing. By following the procedures established in S5.1 of the standard, you should be able to accurately test thermopane glazing.

SINCERELY,

September 2, 1977

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A question has arisen as to the qualification of an interpretation in a test to be performed on a driver window in a bus we are to supply to our customer.

Subject window is a dual slider containing thermopane glazing and we would appreciate clarification with regard to FMVSS 217. Is it necessary for a test performance in compliance to FMVSS 217?

If test is necessary, how should interpretation of force be measured with regard to thermopane which consists of two 3/16" thick pieces of glass with a 1/4" thick space sealed unit?

Your clarification in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you for assisting us in this matter.

ELLCON-NATIONAL, INC.

Stanley Brajer Project Engineer

ID: nht91-6.44

DATE: October 30, 1991

FROM: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet/Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeff Ruff (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing to you in reference to FMVSS 208 and how it applies to the physically challenged. As a major supplier of equipment to the handicap industry, I offer the following concern:

It is our interpretation of FMVSS 208 and feed back from the OEM automakers that has prompted this letter. That interpretation and feedback tell us that the support brace between the "B" pillars and forward cannot technically be removed. If removed, the OEM automakers will not certify compliance with 208.

Unfortunately, the removal of this brace is imperative to the needs of the physically challenged and their ability to drive. As you can see in the pictures enclosed, if the support brace is left unaltered an individual with a high vertebrae injury would not be able to transfer to the driver's seat. (The original roof line is noted in marker.) Thus, the transportation of the physically challenged would be restricted to those without high vertebrae injuries and/or short people.

Please reconsider this ruling, or advise us as to how our industry can adapt to this requirement. I am familiar with the special revision concerning handicap seating dated 3-'86, page 33,181. Is it possible that a similar revision could be attached to FMVSS 208, or does that revision already apply to this situation?

Your immediate response to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-1.29

DATE: 02/09/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD RAY MCCRAY -- 620694, DARRINGTON UNIT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM DONALD RAY MCCRAY TO ANDREW CARD

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1992 to former Secretary Card. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for motor vehicle safety.

Your letter expresses concern about the buses that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) uses to transport inmates. You believe the buses are unsafe and operated in violation of Federal law. As explained below, it appears the DCJ did not violate any NHTSA regulation.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, each person selling a new bus must ensure that the bus complies with the FMVSS's for buses. NHTSA's requirements for vehicle seats are set forth in FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. However, that standard does not require seat covers or pads for any bus seat. Also, there is no FMVSS that requires buses to be heated.

NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as the speed at which the DCJ must operate the bus. Individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Texas state officials would be best able to answer your concerns about the manner in which you were transported.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us.