[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