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: 86-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey, Esq. Dean Hansell, Esq. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning the applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.

As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.

In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 12, 1985

Jeffrey Miller, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

We seek your opinion about a portion of Standard 208. Specifically, we wish to confirm that Part S7.4.5 of Standard 208 is not applicable to passenger cars.

According to Part S7.4(b) of Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, vehicles with gross vehicle weights of 10,000 pounds or less must, inter alia, meet Part S7.4.5. However, Part S7.4(b) excludes manual Type 2 seat belts in the front seat. Part S7.4.5, on the other hand, appears to apply only to Type 2 seat belts in the front outboard seating position. Further, there is no reference to Part S7.4.5 in the regulations other than the one in S7.4(b).

Our review of these two standards leads us to conclude that Standard S7.4.5 does not apply to passenger cars, but is rather limited to trucks and buses. Our subsequent discussions with Mr. Oesch in your office have reinforced this conclusion.

We would appreciate your confirming our conclusion.

Yours truly,

Stephen T. Waimey

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq. Stephen L. Oesch, Esq.

ID: 15662.ogm

Ms. Jayne Hoskins
Senior Engineer
Jaguar Cars Ltd.
Abbey Road
Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
England

Dear Ms. Hoskins:

This is in response to several questions asked by Jaguar Cars Ltd. (Jaguar) regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact.

In your facsimile transmission, you ask if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider compliance in all the specified target locations as acceptable evidence of meeting the requirements of the Standard. You also ask if the head protection provisions are still relevant in those areas where head protection is provided by side airbags. Finally, you ask about the status of any rulemaking regarding airbag systems that provide such head protection.

In a subsequent electronic mail message, you describe a concern you have regarding a seat belt anchorage d-ring which prevents the free motion headform (FMH) from impacting on target point BP-3. You asked if you should: a) increase the size of the target zone, b) move the headform around to hit the target with the side of the headform, or c) slide/rotate the d-ring out of the way.

In regard to your initial question, the head protection requirements of Standard 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those target points that are located using the procedures found in S10 of 49 CFR 571.201. The original proposal for the head protection requirements envisioned performance requirements for zones. This was modified in the final rule to specify individual targets. However, you should be aware that, whatever means Jaguar may use in fulfilling its responsibility to certify its vehicles, that NHTSA will follow the test procedures outlined in Standard 201 in performing its own compliance tests and reserve the right to test all possible targets at all possible target locations.

You also ask whether the agency is contemplating any changes to Standard 201 to accommodate dynamic head protection systems. These systems, which use air bags that deploy from the roof rail and other areas to provide head protection in side impacts, are the subject of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the agency on August 19, 1997 and published in the Federal Register on August 26, 1997 (62 FR 45202). In that document, NHTSA proposed that manufacturers be provided with several options for demonstrating compliance with the head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Under two of the proposed optional tests, target points over an undeployed system are impacted at reduced speeds and the deployed system is tested through impacts at higher speeds or through a full scale crash test involving an 18 mph side impact into a rigid pole.

In an electronic mail message forwarded after your original facsimile transmission, you ask about the appropriate procedure to be followed in the event that seat belt attachment hardware, specifically a d-ring, is located within a target zone and interferes with contact between the forehead impact zone of the FMH and the target point. S10.2(b) specifies that if a seat belt anchorage is on the B-pillar, target BP2 is located at any point on that anchorage. If the target in question is BP2, S8.7 provides that where an anchorage is adjustable, tests are to be conducted with the anchorage adjusted to a point midway between the two adjustment positions. If the target in question is not BP2, the anchorage may be moved within its range of adjustment so that the d-ring does not interfere with contact between the FMH and the target point. If the location of the d-ring still prevents contact between the forehead impact zone and the target area, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10© provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:201
d.4\29\98

ID: 23604

Dietmar K. Haenchen, Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326





Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter asking whether a voluntarily-provided interior trunk release on the rear door of a hatchback triggers a requirement in our door lock standard for a locking mechanism. The answer is yes.

The rear door of a hatchback is excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 401, "Interior Trunk Release." Standard No. 401 requires passenger cars with a trunk compartment to have an interior trunk release. In response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing the standard, we amended the standard to specifically exclude passenger cars with a back door (66 FR 43113,

August 17, 2001). We defined the term "back door" as: "a door or door system on the back end of a passenger car through which cargo can be loaded or unloaded. The term includes the hinged back door on a hatchback or a station wagon." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the hinged back door on a hatchback is not required to have an interior "trunk release" mechanism.

You wish to voluntarily provide an interior release mechanism, but ask whether the mechanism would be required to have a locking mechanism under our door lock standard, Standard No. 206. S4.4.2 of Standard No. 206 states:

Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The question you present is whether the interior release is an "interior door handle" under Standard No. 206. The standard does not define the term "interior door handle." However, the phrase "door handles or other latch release controls" in the last sentence of the passage quoted above from S4.4.2 shows that "door handles" includes "door latch release controls" generally. See also the preamble of the final rule extending the requirements of Standard No. 206 to back doors (60 FR 50124, 50130, September 28, 1995):

NHTSA acknowledges that the back doors of some vehicles so equipped [with an interior door handle] are designed for loading and unloading cargo rather than passengers. Nevertheless, sometimes those doors are also used for ingress and egress of back seat occupants. Therefore, if doors designed primarily for loading and unloading cargo lack an interior door handle, no door lock is required. If an interior door handle is present, this rule requires a means for making the door handle (a door release mechanism) inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. (Emphasis added.)

We recognize the opposing purposes of Standard No. 206 and No. 401 regarding containment of vehicle occupants. Standard No. 206's intent is to retain occupants. It requires a door lock on the back door of hatchbacks with interior door handles or that leads directly into a passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of occupants being ejected through the door in a crash. The agency estimated in the September 1995 final rule that the back door of hatchbacks is about three times as likely to open as one of the front side doors and seven to eight times as likely to open as one of the rear side doors in a crash, resulting in 147 fatalities and 189 serious injuries annually from ejections through the back door of hatchbacks, tailgates, and other back doors. Conversely, Standard No. 401's intent is to facilitate occupant release. Yet, the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment, which was formed to study the problem of trunk entrapment, did not address hatchbacks, nor were there any data presented to the panel indicating that persons had died as a result of their being inadvertently or intentionally locked in the rear of hatchbacks. Based on this, we conclude that Standard No. 206's interest in occupant containment should prevail.

In sum, we appreciate that you want to voluntarily provide a safety device on your hatchbacks. Since, on hatchbacks, the interior release is not required by Standard No. 401, the hatchback does not have to meet that standard's requirements. However, back doors are regulated, and Standard No. 206 requires a back door with an interior door handle (or door release mechanism or latch release control) to have a locking mechanism.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:401
d.3/4/02

ID: 86-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: I. Levy -- B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. Levy B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd. 3/4 Portland Street London, WIN 56G ENGLAND

Thank You for your letter of January 11, 1984, concerning the effect of our regulations on a product you may export to the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The product, which you call a "Klunk-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attaches to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Your Ref.

Our Ref. IL/MN

Date: 14th January 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington D.C., 20590 United States of America

Dear Sirs,

We are endeavouring to export to the United States an attachment which fits into the seatbelt of a motor vehicle and provides the possibility of the adjustment to heighten the comfort level of the wearer.

In order that you may understand exactly what is meant by the above, we enclose herewith a diagram together with the instructions for this item.

We should be most obliged if you could confirm to us that his item would not be excluded from use and does not violate any present Federal Safety Regulations which are in force.

We look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours faithfully, for BPT LEISURE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

I Levy

The KLUNK KLIP* attachment can be used on most cars fitted with automatic (self-retracting) seat belts, where the seatbelt anchor point on the door pillar is similar to the above diagram. (It is not suitable for cars with recessed mountings).

It is designed to provide a personal adjustment which was previously only possible with static-type belts.

KLUNK-KLIP is designed for those who find seatbelts uncomfortable or even claustrophobic to wear. The use of KLUNK-KLIP avoids the tightness and tension so disliked by the users of automatic seatbelts. Ladies in particular appreciate the improved comfort when using KLUNK-KLIP.

KLUNK-KLIP does not effect the efficient working of the automatic seat belt.

TO FIT (see above illustration)

Remove the rotary wedge (A) by easing the two lugs (B) apart. Fit the hook part over the anchor bolt (C) on door pillar. Refit the wedge (A) as shown in diagram. The wedge should now lift freely to grip the belt.

TO USE

Fasten seat belt in the usual way.

Place one hand flat on chest beneath belt. This will extend the belt sufficiently to relieve the tension.

Lift wedge to lock belt.

You may now drive freely without tension. Any movement of the body or slight pull will release the KLIP and the belt will return to its retracted position.

Each time the belt is used the KLUNK-KLIP should be set as advised above, being careful to avoid introducing excessive slack.

ID: nht75-3.8

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Hardy Heater Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you inquire as to any rules and regulations to which you may be subject with respect to your pre-heater defroster. Your letter was referred to this office by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We assume, from the material submitted with your letter, that your pre-heater is sold for installation in used cars and supplements the vehicle's existing defrosting system. If our assumption is incorrect, please advise us. If your pre-heater is installed in a motor vehicle prior to its first purchase or if it replaces an existing defrosting system, you will be subject to regulations in addition to those mentioned in this letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop may not render inoperative any safety device or design in a motor vehicle after its first purchase by the owner. This means that the installation of the pre-heater must not take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The standard with which you will likely be most concerned is Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems (copy enclosed).

(Graphics omitted)

In addition, if the fuel used in your pre-heater has a boiling point greater than 32 degrees F, you must ensure that the pre-heater fuel system complies with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed).

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

YOURS TRULY

THE HARDY HEATER COMPANY

July 30, 1975

Director E. P. A.

I am having manufactured and will market a pre-heater defroster for auto's as shown in the attached documents which are a part of my (Illegible Words).

Please advise me if I am required by rules, regulations or otherwise to obtain any (Illegible Word)) permits to prior to marketing my heater nationwide.

As you (Illegible Words) cylinder of L. P. (Illegible Words) am primarily concerned with any legal requirement with respect its use in automobiles.

I will appreciate any information on the subject.

Frank Hardy

Teddy's drivers in cold climates are not satisfied each day entering a miserably cold auto, with limited or no vision because of condensation, frost, ice, snow, build-up on the glassed areas.

A majority of the over 80 million cars on our highways, and the over 10 million being built each year, need this heater to provide a warm, safe comfortable car from the start. This device fills a gap that has been completely overlooked in automotive engineering.

Please note how many vehicles you see on the highway, especially in the morning, in cooler climates, driving virtually blind, until the standard heater defroster clears the glass area. My heater eliminates this dangerous condition, and provides a comfortable temperature inside the car from the start.

A common cold weather practice is to start the auto engine on cold mornings and let it set and run until the conventional heating process warms and defrosts the car. This practice causes excessive engine wear and long periods of cold engine idle, which is a major factor in air pollution by automobiles. This inconvenience, wear, and pollution can be eliminated with the use of my heater.

Volume sales will be to gasoline powered vehicles; however, it will be a natural as an inducement for all who are thinking of conversion or have converted to propane from gasoline as a motor fuel, as certain basic components such as fuel tank controls, etc., could serve both installations.

Attached is information on a unique gas fired auxiliary and independent automobile heater, that will eliminate the misery and danger of a cold automobile, with frosted glass area, when you first enter it in cold weather. It can provide home-like comfort 24 hours a day, or may be shut off to automatically come on several hours before returning to the car, at which time it will be heated and frost free for safe and comfortable driving from the start.

I have a patent pending for this heater, and am interested in working with a manufacturer for mutual benefits in the production and sale of this item.

I am available for an interview to discuss any ideas or interest you might have concerning my situation.

Warren Frank Hardy

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-2.46

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles A. Schue, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-27-91 from Charles A. Schue, Jr. to DOT/NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OCC 5782)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1991, to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to your prospective importation of a 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D. You have requested a "waiver of purchase date requirement" as outlined in the DOT "Guide for Complying with Regulations on Imported Motor Vehicles", and, if this cannot be granted, information of "other provisions under which I may request approval to import this vehicle into the U.S.A."

We are happy to provide you with an interpretation of the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591). One of its provisions will apply to your situation. A vehicle is admitted after its importer has executed a Form HS-7 at the port of entry. As one of its provisions will apply to you, there is no need to obtain written approval in advance from us.

First, there is no restriction upon importation if the vehicle, in fact, complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You report that the Mercedes has had two previous American owners in Turkey. If the car was originally bought by an American, even though in Turkey, there is the possibility that the vehicle was originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance with the standards at time of manufacture may be verified by the manufacturer's label certifying compliance, usually placed in the driver's door post area. If your Mercedes has such a label, then it may be imported without the necessity of demonstrating conformance.

An importer who is a nonresident of the United States may import a nonconforming vehicle temporarily without the necessity of conforming it to the standards. The fact that you have been employed in Turkey since June 1986 raises the possibility that you may not intend a permanent importation of the Mercedes. If you intend to seek employment again outside the United States, and if the Mercedes will be in the United States for less than a year, you would appear eligible to import the car under the nonresident provisions.

However, if you intend permanent importation and if your Mercedes lacks the certification label, the car is subject to the importation provisions affecting nonconforming vehicles. You have asked about your eligibility to import a vehicle under the provisions set forth in the Guide. The "purchase date" provision to which you refer is 49 CFR 591.5(g)(3). This requirement was mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1397(g)(3). Subsection (g) contains conditions, all of which must be fulfilled in order to import nonconforming vehicles under the more liberal provisions that were in effect before January 31, 1990. One of these conditions, as set forth in section 1397(g)(3), is that the importer "had acquired (or had entered

into a binding contract to acquire) (the motor) vehicle before the date of enactment of this subsection (October 31, 1988)." In establishing this requirement, Congress provided no authority to exempt anyone from its terms. Thus, unless you had a binding contract as of October 31, 1988, to acquire the Mercedes that you purchased on May 15, 1989, you are not eligible to import the vehicle under section 591.5(g).

The requirements under which you may be eligible to permanently import your Mercedes are set forth in section 591.5(f). Unfortunately, these are not explained in the DOT Guide that you have. For your information, I enclose a current copy of 49 CFR Part 591. In brief, two events must occur before you may import your noncomplying vehicle into the United States pursuant to this section. First, this agency must have made a determination that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Second, after such a determination, the vehicle may be imported only by a "registered importer" (essentially an entity that the agency has recognized as capable of converting the vehicle to comply with the standards), or by the vehicle owner who has a contractual relationship with a registered importer to perform conversion work.

You will be pleased to know that the agency has already determined that noncomplying 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D passenger cars are eligible for importation. I enclose a copy of our Final Determination on this and other cars that was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1990. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance can furnish you a list of registered importers, and I suggest that you contact them shortly before you intend to import the car, so that the list will be current.

Attachments

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 219, 11-30-90; Final Determinations That Certain Nonconforming Vehicles Are Eligible For Importation. (Text omitted)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 591, Importation of Vehicles & Equipment Subject To Federal Safety, Bumper & Theft Protection Standards (Text omitted)

ID: aiam1177

Dear Mr. Taylor: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, asking for a waive of 49 CFR S575.6(c) with respect to consumer information that Volvo of America would like to supply to prospective purchasers of 500 passenger cars beginning July 30, 1973.; There is no provision in the Consumer Information Regulation empowering the Administrator to waive the 30 day requirement and therefore we are unable to grant this request. We do not view the lack of this authority as unjust, given the purpose of the requirement 'so that there may be an evaluation and dissemination to the public of this information if deemed appropriate' (34F.R.11501).; We received your material on July 12, and the 30 day period will expir on August 11.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2809

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1978 asking whether there i any legal objection to Volvo's installation of red rear fog lamps on passenger cars it sells in the United States.; As you have noted, 'the only possible objection' to these lamps is th prohibition of S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against the installation of lamps that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment mandated by the standard. We have no basis for disagreeing with your opinion that the red 'rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment.' However, the lamps would be subject to the laws of the individual States.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel