ID: nht75-5.7

DATE: 11/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bucyrus-Erie Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bucyrus-Erie's October 8, 1975, suggestion that the terms "unloaded vehicle weight and "passenger-carrying capacity" be defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 to reflect explanations of them that appeared in the preamble of recent NHTSA rulemaking on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (40 FR 38160, August 27, 1975). You believe that removable portions of a vehicle that are essential to its function (e.g., the boom on a mobile crane) should not be considered part of the vehicle's "cargo" as that term is used in the present definition of unloaded vehicle weight.

The NHTSA explained in the preamble to which you refer that the unloaded vehicle weight is easily determined by, in most cases, subtracting the weight of cargo and occupants from the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer. We believe that the term "cargo" clearly indicates that the manufacturer must only subtract the weight of commodities or freight that the vehicle is designed to carry as a transportation function. Presumably the manufacturer of a mobile crane would have no difficulty in concluding under the present definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that its vehicle does not transport "cargo" and that no value must be subtracted from the GVWR on this account.

It does appear that the term "passenger-carrying capacity" used in Standard No. 121 could be expanded to reflect the exclusion of the operating crew from consideration as passengers. In response to your request we are considering an amendment of S3 to make this concept clearer.

SINCERELY,

BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY

October 8, 1975

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This letter is in response to Docket No. 75-16 Notice 02, which appeared on Page 38160 of the August 27th, Federal Register.

In this article the NHTSA responded to the concern of specialized equipment manufacturers over the terms "unloaded vehicle weight" and "passenger-carrying capacity." After reviewing the explanation issued by the NHTSA, we understand that a mobile crane could be exempt from MVSS 121 if it meets the following conditions.

1. Its maximum attainable speed in two miles is not more than 45 mph.

2. It has an unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR. Example: equipment which is essential to the crane's function, such as, boom, counterweight, etc., may be removed and transported separately. This essential equipment can be subtracted (as cargo) from the GVWR when determining the unloaded vehicle weight.

Note: We do not believe that the term cargo correctly describes the essential equipment which is removed from a mobile crane and transported by alternate means to the next working site for reassembly.

3. It has seating capacity for the driver and essential operating crew, but not passengers.

The NHSTA's explanation prior to amending Section 571.121 implies the above. Our concern is that this explanation is not contained within 49 CFR Section 571.3, and therefore this important qualification would not be available to one referring only to the CFR.

We would like to suggest that the NHSTA clarify within CFR Title 49, the terms "Passenger" and "unloaded vehicle weight," which would reflect the views expressed in the aforementioned Federal Register Article.

Bruce J. Smith Engineering Services Dept.

ID: nht93-4.9

DATE: May 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: John Paul Barber -- Legislative Counsel, American Association of Blood Banks

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-92 from John Paul Barber to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8079); Also attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (Part 567)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether second stage manufacturers may affix additional certification labels with a new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on vehicles. You asked this question in the context of the Federal Highway Administration's commercial driver's license program which applies in part to commercial vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more.

You stated in your letter that your organization has advised its members that second stage manufacturers that convert buses to bloodmobiles have the authority under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to affix an additional label with a new GVWR to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use. You stated, however, that you have since received a legal opinion from a private party asserting that those regulations preclude affixing an additional label to vehicles already in use. You enclosed a copy of your earlier advice (American Association of Blood Banks Bulletin #92-5), which reads in part as follows:

Many bloodmobiles have a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds. This renders the bloodmobiles commercial motor vehicles requiring an operator with a commercial driver's license. However, options may be available to avoid the classification of bloodmobiles as commercial motor vehicles on the basis of their gross vehicle weight rating.

. . . When originally constructed, buses will be given gross vehicle weight ratings in excess of 26,000 pounds. When converted for use as bloodmobiles, their actual weight is reduced to two or three thousand pounds less than the 26,000 pound threshold, yet many converters do not change the gross vehicle weight rating.

By federal regulation, vehicle converters have the authority to affix an additional label containing a new gross vehicle weight rating, to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use.

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 567 and 568.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

I will first discuss the issues you raise concerning new vehicles. Under NHTSA's certification regulations (Parts 567 and 568), manufacturers must assign a GVWR to a new vehicle. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the safety standards to which the vehicle must be certified, and at which NHTSA conducts any compliance testing. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight and load carrying capacity. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." See also section 567.5.

You asked about the authority of persons who convert buses to bloodmobiles to reduce the GVWR of the vehicle. I note that, assuming that the conversion takes place before the first sale of the vehicle for purpose other than resale, i.e., while the vehicle is still new, the converter would be considered either a "final stage manufacturer" or an "alterer," depending on the circumstances. A final stage manufacturer is a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a complete vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 568.3. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 567.6, 567.7, and 568.8.

A final stage manufacturer is ordinarily responsible for making the final assignment of GVWR for a vehicle that it completes. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(c). (Special requirements apply if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or an intermediate vehicle manufacturer assume legal responsibility for all duties imposed by the Safety Act.) However, as discussed below, a final stage manufacturer may, as a practical matter, need to assign to the completed vehicle a GVWR that is consistent with that specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Incomplete vehicle manufacturers (typically GM, Ford or Chrysler) are required to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document which specifies, among other things, the GVWR of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended (i.e., the GVWR that is appropriate for the incomplete vehicle when completed) and statements concerning how the design of the incomplete vehicle affects conformity with safety standards. See 49 CFR Part 568.4. Moreover, manufacturers of chassis-cabs are required also to attach a certification label concerning the conformance of the chassis-cab with safety standards. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(a). (A chassis-cab is an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components to perform its intended function.)

If a final stage manufacturer wishes to base its certification on the incomplete vehicle document or other information furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, as the vast majority of final stage manufacturers do in actual practice, the final stage manufacturer will likely need to assign to the completed vehicle a GVWR that is consistent with that specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. I note that, since most safety performance requirements are easier to meet at lower loads than higher loads, it is possible that a final stage manufacturer might be able to justify assigning a

reduced GVWR to some vehicles. We would urge the final stage manufacturer to consult with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer about such an action. As indicated above, the reduced GVWR would need to comply with the requirement set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(3), and we would expect it to reflect the manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight and load carrying capacity.

I note that the final stage manufacturer is subject to the same basic requirements concerning GVWR as a single stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of an April 29, 1991 letter to Mitsubishi which discusses the issue of reducing the GVWR of certain vehicles.

An alterer has a more limited certification responsibility. Under 49 CFR Part 567.7, an alterer must allow the original certification label to remain on the new vehicle and must affix an additional label which states that, as altered, the vehicle "conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration." If the GVWR of the vehicle as altered is different from that shown on the original certification label, the modified value must be provided. I note, however, that since an alterer only certifies a vehicle with respect to the alterations it makes, the alterer would only have a basis to change the GVWR if the alterations are relevant to GVWR.

You also asked whether manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to vehicles after they are sold for purposes other than resale, i.e., after they become used vehicles. As discussed above, the term GVWR refers to "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle," and the GVWR is assigned by the vehicle's manufacturer as part of the certification process. Therefore, for purposes of NHTSA's regulations, a vehicle's GVWR is fixed as of the time of its first sale to a consumer. The only exception to this is if the manufacturer seeks to correct an error (e.g., calculation error or typographical error) regarding the originally assigned GVWR.

We recognize that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. While not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in such situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle.

You also asked whether the affixing of a new label with an adjusted GVWR would have the effect of rendering existing bloodmobiles noncommercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since the commercial driver's license program is administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), I have referred this question to that agency. If you wish to speak to someone at that agency about your question, you may contact Charles Medalen, of the FHWA Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1354.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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.]

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: 571-108 - outdoor exposure test - Sabic - 08-005252

ID: nht68-4.22

DATE: March 1, 1968

FROM: George C. Nield -- Acting Deputy Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service

TO: Earl Allgaier -- Manager, Driver Education Division, Traffic Engineering and Safety Department, American Automobile Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Joseph R. O'Gorman to A. Nathan Darby (Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Smyth (A37; Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Bryon A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of February 16 concerning the installation of dual controls and handicapped controls on passenger cars.

In general, your evaluation of the effect of installing dual controls for driver training or controls for handicapped persons by dealers is correct. The present Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not prohibit the installation of these controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. I am enclosing a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.

In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls. For example, under Standard No. 101 the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.

Should you have any further questions on this matter, I would be most happy to have you again contact me.

ID: 12374-3.pja

Mr. Jean-François Thomas
Manager of Industrial Property
Glaverbel -- Center R&D
Rue de L'Aurore, 2
B-6040 Jumet, Belgium

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your August 14, 1996, letter asking nine questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111). Your questions focus on S11 of FMVSS No. 111, which states

[a] multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of an electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure. (Emphasis added).

For the sake of convenience, this letter refers to this passage as "the phrase." Our response is based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter. We assume that these questions refer to multiple reflectance mirrors that require power to maintain their reflectance levels above the 35 percent level.

A. Other sections of Standard 111, such as S5, differentiate between, or address specifically, different types of mirrors, such as outside rear view mirrors, or inside rearview mirrors. In contrast, S11 only refers to a "multi reflectance mirror." Please confirm that S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

Yes. Section S11 states that the "average reflectance of any mirror shall be determined in accordance with" a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice. (Emphasis added) Moreover, there is no limiting language in S11. Therefore, S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

B. We note that the Phrase does not specify the time frame within which the driver must adjust the mirror to the 35% level. Please indicate whether a time frame has been contemplated, and what it is.

While NHTSA did not contemplate a specific time frame, it intended that the adjustment could be done mechanically, in much the same way as a conventional selective prismatic mirror can be adjusted. See 56 FR 58575 (November 20, 1991). This is because the electrical failure could turn the mirror dark at any time, including situations where the driver could not pull over to repair the mirror but would need to brighten the mirror quickly (e.g., while in a tunnel or maneuvering in heavy traffic). NHTSA interprets the phrase to mean that the adjustment would have to be done quickly while driving.

C. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an attachment that can be removed in the event of an electrical failure, so that, after the removal of such attachment, the portion of the mirror that remains installed in the vehicle achieves the 35% reflectance?

Yes. We are not entirely sure what you mean by "the case of the mirror," but as long as the removal of the attachment could be done quickly by the driver alone, while driving (e.g., pulling off a faceplate), the removal of an attachment could be considered a "means to adjust."

D. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an additional or replacement components that can be affixed to the mirror in the event of an electrical failure, so that after the driver has added, affixed, or installed such an additional or replacement component onto the mirror, the mirror achieves the 35% reflectance?

No. NHTSA stated in the 1991 final rule that "the rulemaking's overriding focus must be to ensure that mirrors are capable of providing adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation." (emphasis added) It is doubtful that this arrangement could provide adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation. The driver would have to open the case, remove an item, and affix it. This is a three step process that should not be performed while driving. In contrast, NHTSA envisions a simple action -- such as flipping a lever, turning a knob, or pulling or sliding a panel -- that can be quickly accomplished while driving. An important distinction between the situation here and the situation in question C is that the attachment in question C can always be removed, resulting in a compliant mirror, but a missing attachment cannot be affixed to restore the mirror's reflectance.

E. Can the Phrase be interpreted to include, as a "means to adjust," the removal of a portion of the existing mirror or the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror?

As discussed in our response to question C, the removal of a portion of the existing mirror could be considered a "means to adjust." As discussed in question D, the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror, would not meet this definition. The intent here is to allow for adequate vision at all times during the vehicle's operation.

F. Can the words "be equipped with a means . . . to adjust" be interpreted to allow the driver to stop the vehicle and complete such adjustment within a short time after the occurrence of the electrical failure, using spare parts or tools available within the mirror case? Within the glove compartment, within the trunk?

No. As explained above, such scenarios would be impermissible because they could not be done at all times while the vehicle is in operation.

G. Assuming that Section 11 applies to both inside and outside mirrors, does the "means to adjust the mirror have to be within the drivers reach within the vehicle, i.e., without opening the window to reach the mirror, or without stopping the car and getting out of the car to adjust the mirror. Or, can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that in the case of outside mirrors, which are less accessible than [the] internal mirror, the driver may have the ability to stop the vehicle to adjust the mirror to the appropriate reflectance level.

Yes, the means to adjust the mirror have to be within the driver's reach, but the driver may roll down the driver's side window in order to reach the outside mirrors on that side. The driver would have to be able to accomplish the adjustment quickly, alone, and without stopping the vehicle. Because the driver could not safely reach the passenger side outside rear view mirror, there would have to be some remote means to adjust that mirror to 35 percent reflectance in the event of an electrical failure.

H. Can the Phrase be interpreted to allow the use of a battery, as an alternative source of power? And if yes, does the battery have to be incorporated within the mirror, or is it sufficient if it is provided to the purchasers of the vehicle (and is affixed to the vehicle's trunk or glove compartment), or is it sufficient if the battery is generally available in commerce?

No. Battery backup would not be a "means . . . to adjust." Batteries merely address temporarily certain kinds of electrical failure caused by loss of primary power. The regulatory requirement is meant to address the term "electrical failure" from any cause. For example, if the electrical failure occurred in the contacts to the mirror, the battery power would not maintain mirror reflectance at 35 percent. Moreover, over time the battery would discharge, eventually becoming unavailable for backup.

I. Modern vehicles contain numerous components that can operate only with electricity. Among them, for example, windshield wipers, electrical windows, ABS brakes or airbags. Although the probability is extremely small, electrical failures do at times occur. Since no product can achieve 100 % reliability, we assume that there must be some threshold level of failure. Can Standard 111/11 be interpreted or, has this or any other safety standard been interpreted to allow a "de minimis level" of non compliance? Please provide examples of failure levels that are acceptable.

The probability of failure is irrelevant in this case. The requirement states "in the event of electrical failure . . . " Therefore, no matter how rare it would be in the real world, an electrical failure is an event that the standard specifically addresses. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a multiple reflectance mirror for compliance with S11, the agency will cause an electical failure. NHTSA's current test procedure (TP-111-05, May 9, 1995) states "[i]f [testing] a multiple reflectance mirror remove all electrical power and adjust [the mirror] manually to day mode position, if so equipped." (Emphasis added). If there is a battery backup, NHTSA will disable that, too.

In answer to your second question, our regulations do not allow a "de minimis" level of noncompliance. The standards are written in terms of objective criteria such that a vehicle or a regulated item of equipment passes only if it meets the stated requirements. Except for minor labeling violations or failures that, in NHTSA's judgment, are aberrations rather than systematic problems, most test failures are subject to follow up actions which are directed at obtaining a recall.

In addition to our responses to your specific questions, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes a manufacturer's responsibilities to recall and remedy motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with safety related defects and how this agency's standards apply to such products motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111

d.11/21/96

ID: 3196yy

William Engel, Assistant Chief
Covington Fire Department
100 E. Robbins St.
Covington, KY 41011

Dear Mr. Engel:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4]

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:206 d:ll/7/9l

ID: 3201yy

William Engel, Assistant Chief
Covington Fire Department
100 E. Robbins St.
Covington, KY 41011

Dear Mr. Engel:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4]

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:206 d:ll/7/9l

ID: Robert Babcock