[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14501-14502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7579]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 96-094; Notice 2]
Denial of Petition for Import Eligibility Decision
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition
submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A). The petition, which was submitted by
Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, Pennsylvania (``Champagne''), a
registered importer of motor vehicles, requested NHTSA to decide that a
1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro Wagon that was not originally manufactured
to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is
eligible for importation into the United States. In the petition,
Champagne contended that this vehicle is eligible for importation on
the basis that (1) it is substantially similar to a vehicle that was
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States and that was certified by its manufacturer as complying with the
safety standards (the 1995 Audi A6 Quattro Wagon), and (2) it is
capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register on September 6,
1996 (61 FR 46900) that contained a thorough description of the
petition, and solicited public comments upon it. One comment was
received in response to the notice, from Volkswagen of America, Inc.
(``Volkswagen''), the United States representative of Audi AG, the
vehicle's manufacturer. In this comment, Volkswagen contended that the
non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro Wagon is ineligible for
importation because it is not substantially similar to a vehicle that
was originally manufactured and certified for sale in the United States
and is not capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards. Specifically, Volkswagen observed that the non-U.S.
certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro Wagon is equipped with a 4.2 liter
V8 engine, which it claimed is significantly larger and heavier than
either the 2.8 liter V6 engine that is installed in the U.S. certified
1995 Audi A6 Quattro Wagon or the 2.2 liter 5 cylinder engine that is
installed in the U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Quattro Wagon. Volkswagen
stated that no dynamic testing has been performed that would be
necessary to certify that the vehicle, when equipped with the larger
engine, will meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. Additionally, Volkswagen
noted that the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro Wagon is
not equipped with a knee bolster that is necessary to meet the
automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208.
NHTSA accorded Champagne an opportunity to respond to Volkswagen's
comments. In its response, Champagne expressed strong disagreement with
Volkswagen's contention that the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant
Quattro Wagon is not substantially similar to a vehicle originally
manufactured and certified for sale in the United States. Champagne
asserted that the vehicle's larger engine size does not have a
significant impact on the crashworthiness of the vehicle or on its
compliance with Standard No. 208. Specifically, Champagne contended
that the 2.2 liter ``in line'' 5 cylinder engine installed in the U.S.
certified 1995 Audi S6 Quattro Wagon is very close in length to the V8
engine installed in the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro
Wagon. Additionally, Champagne observed that because of the extensive
use of aluminum in larger engines, the weight of vehicles equipped with
each of these engines would differ by only ``a few percent.''
In a subsequent response, Champagne elaborated on these comments by
stating that the additional length and weight of the V8 engine
installed in the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro Wagon
will not significantly affect the crash performance of the vehicle when
compared to a comparable model equipped with the 2.8 liter V6 engine
that is installed in the U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Quattro.
Specifically, Champagne alleged that the total distance from the back
edge of the engine block to the front edge of the fire wall in the non-
U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro is two inches, a measurement
that it asserts is identical to that found in the U.S. certified 1995
Audi S6 Quattro equipped with the 2.8 liter V6 engine. Based on this
similarity, Champagne theorized that ``in a frontal crash, the V8
engine will affect the passenger compartment in a similar manner as the
V6 engine.'' Additionally, Champagne contended that both the non-U.S.
certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro and its U.S. certified counterpart
are ``designed so that in a severe frontal crash the engine and
drivetrain are directed downward and rearward, under the passenger
compartment.'' According to Champagne, ``[t]his minimizes the effect
[of these components] on the safety characteristics of the frontal
crush zone,'' and results in both the U.S. and non-U.S. certified
versions of the vehicle ``having substantially similar [Standard No.
208] compliance results * * *. Champagne further reiterated that the V8
is only three percent heavier that the V6, and only one percent heavier
than the 5 cylinder engine when engine weight is measured as a
percentage of total vehicle weight. Champagne asserted that this
difference ``is not significant, and will not have a significant impact
on [Standard No. 208] compliance.''
NHTSA accorded Volkswagen an opportunity to respond to Champagne's
comments. In its response, Volkswagen discounted the significance of
the distance between the back of the engine and the vehicle firewall as
an indicator of the engine's effect on crash
[[Page 14502]]
performance. In contrast, Volkswagen observed that ``[t]he greater
overall size of the 4.2 liter engine and transaxle combination versus
the 2.8 liter V6 actually reduces the available crush space at the back
of the engine/transaxle system and alters the crash deceleration
pulse.'' Volkswagen contended that ``[t]he effect of such crash pulse
differences is greater on an unbelted dummy than on a belted dummy,''
and ``[f]or that reason verification of compliance to FMVSS 208 of the
S6 vehicle with the 4.2 liter V8 engine would require a crash test.''
Additionally, Volkswagen asserted that contrary to Champagne's claim,
there is no design feature incorporated into Audi vehicles ``for the
engine and drivetrain to be directed downward and rearward under the
passenger compartment to minimize their effect on the safety
characteristics of the frontal crush zone.''
NHTSA has fully considered the comments from both Volkswagen and
Champagne. In light of Volkswagen's claim that a 1995 Audi S6 Avant
Quattro Wagon equipped with a 4.2 liter V8 engine has never been
subjected to the dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 208,
Champagne had the burden of producing test data or other information to
demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of meeting those requirements
when equipped with that engine. Champagne's plain assertion that the
4.2 liter V8 engine is close to the size and weight of the 2.2 liter 5
cylinder engine installed in the U.S. certified 1995 Audi A6 Quattro,
and is located the same distance from the firewall as the 2.8 liter V6
engine installed in the U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Quattro, without
further supporting information, is not sufficient to meet this burden.
Accordingly, NHTSA has concluded that the petition does not clearly
demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro
Wagon is eligible for importation. The petition must therefore be
denied under 49 CFR 593.7(e).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(1), NHTSA will not consider a
new import eligibility petition covering this vehicle until at least
three months from the date of this notice.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 20, 1997.
Marilynne Jacobs,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 97-7579 Filed 3-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
