ID: nht73-4.4

DATE: 04/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Kulik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1973, requesting our confirmation of an opinion given you by phone concerning the method of testing the sensitivity of seat belt warning systems under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

We hereby confirm our previous statement that the weight sensing provisions of sections S7.3 and S7.4 do not require the use of a specified test dummy. The sections refer to "persons" of specified weights, thereby implying some distribution of the weight, but they do not reference the test dummy used in other sections of the standard.

ID: nht73-4.40

DATE: 07/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, inquiring as to your responsibilities regarding the conformity and certification of motor vehicles on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) performs certain manufacturing operations. You indicate that the operations involve "body transfers," in which used bodies are first removed from used trucks chassis, repaired, and then transferred to new cabs and chassis. The two questions you raise are:

1) Must the vehicle comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of the body transfer, and

2) If not, need it comply at the time of sale to the public.

You indicate that your position is that you believe the answer to both questions to be negative; that with respect to the first question, the vehicle need not conform nor be certified as conforming because no "sale" of the vehicle has occurred; and with respect to the second question, you argue that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding used vehicles (Sec. 108(b)(1); 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1); appear to exempt these vehicles from conforming to the standards when they are sold.

We must disagree with both of your conclusions. We agree that the operations performed by PG & E, adding used bodies to new chassis, make PG & E a "final-stage manufacturer" as defined in the Certification and Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). The Certification

regulations require that final-stage manufacturers who complete vehicles for their own use ascertain and certify conformity to all applicable standards as of the time the final-stage manufacturing operations are performed. We do not agree that section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) applies only in connection with the sale of vehicles. That section also requires conformity with respect to the introduction and delivery for introduction of vehicles in interstate commerce. We have construed this language to include the use of any vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways, even if the vehicle has not been sold. The responsibility for certification under the regulations is concomitant with the responsibility for conformity, and, similarly, is not dependent upon a vehicle sale.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in our view, also requires a vehicle used by its manufacturer to conform to all applicable standards at the time of its eventual sale by that manufacturer. Our conclusion is based upon section 108(b)(1), which requires conformity until the first purchase of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. Where a manufacturer uses his own vehicles, that purchase would not take place until the manufacturer ultimately sells the vehicle. However, the NHTSA is aware that conformity of vehicle systems which deteriorate under normal use may be impossible to maintain, and as a matter of administrative practice does not consider it necessary for such a manufacturer to renew conformity when his use of the vehicle has been bona fide.

ID: nht73-4.41

DATE: 08/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Raymond's Utility Trailers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By notice letter dated April 27, 1973, you were advised that this agency was considering seeking imposition of civil penalties against you for violation of sections 108(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 108(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that "No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . unless it is in conformity with [all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards]." Section 108(a)(3) provides in pertinent part that "No person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114." You were afforded an opportunity to submit to us any information, data, or arguments relevant to this matter. We have carefully reviewed your response of May 15, 1973.

We have concluded that you have violated sections 108(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the Act by manufacturing for sale, selling, and offering for sale snowmobile and bicycle trailers that did not conform and were not certified as conforming with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and that accordingly you are subject to civil penalties not to exceed $ 1,000 for each separate violation of section 108. Section 109(b) authorizes the Secretary to compromise any civil penalty. This authority has been delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. If you wish to seek a settlement, you should submit a written offer in compromise to

the undersigned, accompanied by a certified check payable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, not later than twenty (20) days after you have received this letter. The Administrator views a compromise of $ 1,000 as appropriate under the circumstances. If we do not hear from you within the 20 day period we will proceed with a court action to seek the maximum civil penalty authorized by law and an order restraining further violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We have also reviewed your letter of June 22, 1973, forwarding to us a sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of trailers manufactured by your company to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We are of the opinion that the sample notification you have submitted does not fully conform to the requirements of the Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577) and should be modified as follows:

1. Section 577.4 of the regulation requires the opening statement of the notification to be: "This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act." While your opening statement is similar, we see no necessity for a departure from the regulatory language, which was intended to be used verbatim, and suggest that you modify this sentence to conform to the regulation.

2. The second sentence of your letter states that the determination of a defect was made by the NHTSA. This, however, is not the case. Section 577.5 of the Defect Notification regulation provides that the notification letter shall state that the defect was determined to relate to motor vehicle safety by the NHTSA when that determination results from an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to section 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(e)). This proceeding did not take place in your case, however, and we consequently view the determination regarding the defect to have been made by you. We believe it would serve to further clarify your letter if your second sentence were to indicate as well that the defect relates to a nonconformity to Standard No. 108.

In addition, our enforcement file in this case indicates that trailers manufactured by you were not certified in conformity with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Your notification letter should refer to this as well. An appropriate second

sentence for your letter would therefore read: Raymond's Utility Trailers has determined that a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety exists in your (year) trailer in that it fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment", and has not been certified as conforming to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards in accordance with applicable regulations.

3. Section 577.4(c) requires the notification to contain a clear description of the defect. In your case, the defect concerns a failure to conform to specific requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and NHTSA certification requirements. We believe that to fulfill this requirement your notification letter should indicate how, specifically, your trailers fail to conform to the standard and the regulations. To do so would require a statement of the number, color, and type of specific lighting equipment with which your trailers have not been equipped, and the fact that the required certification label has not been affixed.

A statement that such lighting and the required label will be affixed to the vehicle should also be included to meet the requirements of @ 577.4(e)(1), which requires a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer offers to repair the defect without charge to the purchaser.

RAYMOND'S UTILITY TRAILERS

Dear Trailers Owner:

Be informed that this is a defect notification letter being sent pursuant to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The National Highway Traffic Administrator has determined that a defect relating to motor vehicle safety exists in your trailer which was built by me in 19 .

All trailers must have side marker lights and if over 80" wide they also require clearance and identification lights. Most trailers have a very low silhouette and the extra lights are to outline the outer edges of the trailer to prevent possible collision. Such an incident could occur at an intersection if another vehicle was waiting to pull into the intersection and could not see the trailer being pulled behind your car. If a trailer is over 80" wide, identification lights are needed to designate the width as being wider than that of the car and to prevent possible side swiping of the trailer.

It is suggested that until you have the extra lights installed on your trailer you do not haul your trailer at night.

All additional lights are being installed at no expense to you. In most cases it will take 2 - 3 hours to install the additional lights, dependent upon the number of lights already on your trailer. Parts are available at this time for installation on your trailer by appointment. Please call for an appointment so correction of this defect can be made in a timely manner.

Very truly yours,

Richard R. Raymond

ID: nht73-4.42

DATE: 08/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1973, requesting a uniform location for trailer certification labels required by both the Hazardous Materials regulations (49 CFR @ 178.340-10) and NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). You request that location be specified as the "forward half of the left side of the trailer."

NHTSA Certification regulations, as you note, presently provide that the certification label for trailers must be placed on the "forward half of the left side of the vehicle" (49 CFR @ 567.4(d)). This requirement does not distinguish between the frame and the tank shell, and the reference to "vehicle" in the language of the provision is considered inclusive of both. The Certification regulations therefore appear to permit the location of the label that you request.

I note, however, that drawings in your letter, those titled "Acceptable Locations of Certification Labels" and "Suggested Locations for Certification Labels", picture as an appropriate label location the front of the vehicle.

This location is not permitted by the NHTSA Certification regulations, which clearly call for the label to be affixed to the vehicle "left side". While it is not clear whether you intended to request that the label be permitted to be affixed to the vehicle front, we do not find sufficient justification in your letter to depart from the existing requirements in this regard.

ID: nht73-4.43

DATE: 08/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: DPD Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, in which you asked our opinion as to the effect of Standard 208 upon your vehicle air conditioner installations.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for the next few years allows manufacturers the option of providing either seat belts or passive protection systems, of which the air cushion is presently the most widely considered, in various combinations. The decision as to when passive protection would become mandatory has not yet been made.

The passive protection requirements of Standard 208 are measured with instrumented dummies, and the standard does not specifically regulate the method by which manufacturers provide the protection in the various crash tests. The way a manufacturer chooses to meet the standard, including the arrangement of the components of the vehicle interior, is thus left to his own discretion and the NHTSA does not offer opinions as to particular vehicle designs.

The "vacuum advance system" you refer to evidently refers to the air pollution control programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. That agency's address is Washington, D.C. 20460.

Yours Truly,

dpd mfg. co., inc.

July 31, 1973

The Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We manufacture air conditioners for small cars imported into the United States Accordingly, we are interested in providing units which will not interfer with vehicle safety devices.

Our 1973 air conditioners are usually installed under the dash or in center console. See attached photos of our air conditioners installed and the vehicle without air conditioning.

We have heard that a vacuum advance system may be under consideration and the air-bag protection system would definitely bear on our future design of air conditioners. Also, we need your opinion as to the effect of Law 208 upon our air conditioners.

The above information is most urgently requested since we are proceeding rapidly with the 1974 air conditioners.

Thanking you in advance for an early reply.

O. D. Hunter Director of Training and Publications

Enclosures

ID: nht73-4.44

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hank Thorp Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1973, which asks if the Manufacturer Code proposal (38 FR 14968, June 7, 1973) as it applies to wheel nuts (1) requires all manufacturers, including vehicle manufacturers, to label their products, (2) permits labeling with self-adhesive stickers, and (3) has authorized the issuance of codes at this time. In addition, you requested a clarification of an interpretation of Standard 211, Wheel nuts.

The answer to your first question is yes. The labeling requirements apply to foreign and domestic manufacturers of passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles and to manufacturers of equipment for those vehicles. The term "manufacturer" includes an importer of vehicles or regulated equipment.

The use of a self-adhesive sticker in satisfaction of the permanent and legible labeling requirements of the proposal is permissible, so long as the information printed thereon is indelible and the label is affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

No codes have been assigned at this time. Assignment will not occur until a decision is reached as to issuance of a final rule.

The small hexagonal nuts which you import and which you describe as serving the same purpose as the small hexagonal nuts which secure factory-mounted, steel wheels to an axle, are not wheel nuts under the standard. The reference to normal coverage by a hub cap or wheel disc is simply descriptive of their location.

MINILITE

July 7, 1973

James E. Wilson Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation

I am writing to you with respect to the proposed rules (49CFR Parts 566, 567, 568, 571) as published in Volume 38, #109, of the Federal Registration of Thursday, June 7, 1973. I have a number of questions concerning these proposed rules which should also be construed, in part, as comment upon the proposed rules before adoption.

1. As exclusive U.S. Importer of light alloy road wheels, trademarked MINILITE(register) (Registration #893174), we also import wheel nuts and hub caps used with these wheels.(Illegible Word) 1 January 1968, we were required by the U. S. Bureau of Customs to clearly(Illegible Word) the containers in which these products were imported to indicate that they complied fully with Section 571.211. At that time, manufacturers of identical products for the aftermarket within the United States were not required to show similar statements of compliance on their packages. Do the proposed rules referenced above affect all manufacturers of these products, whether or not they are imported or not and whether or not they are used in the assembly of new motor vehicles?

2. Please refer to the specifics of Part 571; S211-1. This standard was revised effective 7/25/69 to add an interpretation as follows.

"INTERPRETATION"

A clarification of the term "wheel nut" as used in the requirements section S3 of Standard No. 211 has been requested. This section states that "wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." A "wheel nut" is an exposed nut that is mounted at the center or hub of a wheel, and not the ordinary small hexagonal nut, one of several which secures a wheel to an axle, and which is normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc."

The wheel nuts we import are small hexagonal nuts and 4 or 5 are used to hold each wheel to the axle. The U. S. Bureau of Customs has not considered these to be of the type affected by this standard. However, due to the nature of light alloy wheels, our wheels nuts are not "normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc". I am requesting a written interpretation as to whether the small hexagonal wheel nuts used with light alloy wheels but not normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc are covered by Standard 211.

3. If the answer to #2 above is no, I would comment that it would seem appropriate to change the language of Standard 211 and designate that the standard covers "center lock wheel nuts" rather than "wheel nuts".

4. Regards hub caps; our cap is a smooth chemically brightened aluminum cap of either 2 5/8 or 3 1/8 diameter which is pushed through the center hole from the back of the wheel before the wheel is mounted to the axle. It is clear that this is covered by the Standard and would, therefore, require manufacturers identification if the proposed rules are passed. Does the comment that "each wheel nut, wheel disc, and hub cap to be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the manufacturers code number . . ." permit labeling to take the form of a self-adhesive label affixed to the inside of our hub cap so as not to be visible when the cap is fitted to an automobile?

5. If your answer to question #1 indicates that stateside manufacturers of after-market hub caps are not affected by the standard and/or the proposed manufacturers certification requirements, I would comment that the standard is missing the main(Illegible Word) of its purpose; that is, to eliminate winged extensions from center lock wheel nuts and hub caps on vehicles used on the public highways of the United States. The prime source of hub caps produced with eared extensions is from automotive aftermarket manufacturers located in this country.

6. Are assignment of manufacturers identification numbers being made now, or will this assignment be made after the proposed rules are adopted?

I look forward to a reply from you on the above points.

Hank Thorp

ID: nht73-4.45

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1973, concerning your dealer's refusal to move back the driver's seat in your new car. I apologize for the delay in our reply.

You state in your letter that adjustment of the seat was made a pre-condition of the sale. A dealer who adjusts a seat prior to sale in this fashion will have to be able to certify that the seat, as modified, conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing passenger car seats (Standard No. 207) and to other standards that may be affected by the seat position, such as the seat belt anchorage standard (Standard No. 210). A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat so long as the modified seats continue to perform in the manner required by the standard. Often, however, dealers decide not to assume the burdens of certifying modified components and therefore decline to modify such components prior to sale.

he Federal Safety Standards do not apply to motor vehicles after they have been purchased by the consumer. After you purchase the car, the standards do not prevent you from modifying it, even if such modifications affect the ability of the car to meet the standards. If you purchased your car with the seat in its modified position, you can modify it or have the dealer modify it without incurring liability under the standards.

ID: nht73-4.46

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kesler Precision Optics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1973, enclosing an accessory passenger car mirror that you feel is a detriment to motor vehicle safety.

Since the unit incorporates two convex mirrors it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors for original equipment on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. However, the Standard does not cover aftermarket items such as the unit you sent, and its sale is therefore not prohibited under Federal regulations.

Yours truly,

July 12, 1973

National Highway Traffic safety Administration Chief of Counsel

Attention: Mr. D. Vinson

As per our telephone conversation yesterday I am writting to confirm this report on the Blue Fox matter. I also sending package of mirror product so you gentlemen can see how unsafe it is to the driving public. I have myself researched this type of design and I know this could be alot safer being impact resistance and distortion free. The most important this product states it eliminates blind spot left and right. Also the mirror cuts off center viewing area on all standard automobile mirrors when this mirror is attached over other original mirror on the vehicle. This mirror is being distributed throughout the nation in auto(Illegible Word). Like(Illegible Word) here on the west coast and Aid stores there on the east coast. Now the public does not know this type of mirror design until they try one out, but then the person driving with it might be to late of finding out by already having an accident. To your judgement.

Sincerely Yours,

R. Kesler

Please send confirm report of Administration decision to Kesler Precision Optics.

ID: nht73-4.47

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: SCARTI

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

ID: nht73-4.48

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ralph Nader & Carl E. Nash

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

I certainly appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention.

SINCERELY,

July 23, 1973

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

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

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

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

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

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

202 Head Restraints (does not have any head restraints)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Carl E. Nash

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