[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