ID: nht73-2.49

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crisp & Henderson, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 19, 1973, inquiring whether there are Federal or State regulations that contain labeling requirements for rubber used in retreaded tires.

There are to our knowledge no Federal regulations that either establish quality levels or require labeling for rubber used in retreaded tires.

Yours Truly,

CRISP & HENDERSON GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

November 19, 1973

Federal Department of Transportation Consumer Affairs

RE: Tire rubber specifications for recapping tires

I have a client with a special problem for which I need your assistance. I would like to briefly outline the problem.

A manufactures tire rubber in sheets which he sells to B in a small town in Eastern North Carolina. B wanted one quality of rubber for recapping, but did not want to pay the asking price. A deal was made so that B got what he thought was the higher quality rubber because the sheets of rubber were stamped with a higher quality label. Actually A was supplying B with lower quality sheets of rubber, but with a higher quality label. This means that B might be putting a quality made for farm tires or passenger car tires into truck tires. B now realizes that a substitution has been made in the quality of rubber he has been receiving.

I would like to know what state and federal regulations apply to labeling rubber which is used for recapping tires. Both A & B in my problem are located in North Carolina. I would appreciate your assistance in advising me of this information or of the appropriate agency for me to write.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Deborah A. Henderson Attorney at Law

ID: nht73-2.5

DATE: 08/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, forwarding to us a letter from Mr. Jim Finley of the Hughes Tool Company. Mr. Finley describes two situations, requesting an opinion on the applicability of NHTSA requirements to each of them.

The first question is whether an earth auger body that is mounted on a crane carrier will conform to the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) if the vehicle exceeds its stated weight ratings when a derrick is mounted on the vehicle but a permanent metal plate is also affixed to the vehicle which states: "The GVWR and GAWR require that the derrick be removed before operating this vehicle upon a public highway."

We do not believe such a label may be used to bring a vehicle into conformity with the Certification regulations. Both "gross vehicle weight rating" and "gross axle weight rating" call for a rating set by the manufacturer, but each is intended to reflect a fully-loaded vehicle or axle condition as a vehicle is likely to be used. Although your letter is not explicit in this regard, if it is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways with the derrick mounted on it (but for the label), even though the derrick is "removable", we would not consider the weight ratings to be consistent with the regulations if they do not take into account the weight of the derrick.

Similarly, the components used in the manufacture of the vehicle should be of sufficient strength to carry the derrick when the vehicle is in motion. On the other hand, if it is unreasonable to expect the derrick to be attached to the crane carrier when the carrier is operated on the highway, the weight ratings need not take into account the weight of the derrick. In neither case, however, would the label you illustrate affect the conformity of the vehicle to the regulations; in the former case the label does not correct the incorrect weight ratings, and in the latter case, the label is unnecessary.

Your second question is whether Federal regulations regarding lighting may be met if the rear lights of a truck-mounted earth auger utilize hinged covers that are intended to protect the lights during boring operations. You state that when the vehicle is operated, the cover is secured to expose the lights. You ask if we recommend the use of a warning sticker in the cab to remind the driver to open the covers.

The use of these covers is not prohibited by the Federal lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lights, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment" (49 CFR 571.108). We think the idea of a warning sticker in the cab is nonetheless a good one.

Yours truly, TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

July 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Dick:

I would appreciate your response to the attached two questions submitted by Hughes Tool Company, a member of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, at your earliest convenience.

Best wishes,

Stan Haransky -- Associate Director

HUGHES TOOL COMPANY

June 6, 1973

Stan Haransky, Associate Director -- TBEA

RE: Follow-up on Hot Line Questions

Dear Mr. Haransky:

Question No.1:

Hughes Tool Company designs, builds, and mounts earth auger bodies on crane carriers. With the derrick mounted on the vehicle, the front axle weight and the total vehicle weight on some models exceeds the crane carrier's GAWR and GVWR. Removing the derrick produces weights well within the GAWR and GVWR. On such models we permanently mount a metal plate with the following inscription:

CAUTION

The GVWR and GAWR require that the derrick be removed before operating this vehicle upon a public highway.

If this statement is not followed by the vehicle owner, is he or this company likely to be penalized? If so, what would the penalty be?

Question No.2

Most boring operations with a truck-mounted earth auger are performed at the rear of the carrier. The spoil is removed from the boring tool by rotating it at high speed. Often rocks are thrown at the rear lights with sufficient force to break the lenses. To protect the lights during boring operations, a hinged cover is swung down to conceal the lights. When the vehicle is to be driven on a public road, the cover is secured in the open position to expose the lights.

It is obvious that the driver would be penalized for forgetting to open the covers before driving on a public road, but you can this company be penalized for providing this feature? If so, would you recommend that we place.(Illegible Word) sticker in the cab to remind the driver to open the covers?

Very truly yours,

Jim A Finley

ID: nht73-2.50

DATE: 12/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Car Credit Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received a complaint from Mr.(Illegible Words) of South Forest Street, Chicago, Illinois, that a 1967 Chrysier may have been sold to him with an altered odometer and an incomplete odometer disclosure statement.

This agency administers the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings(Illegible Word) which(Illegible Word) the alteration, disconnection, or resetting of customers are requires a transferer to make a mileage Requirements. Copies of the law and regulations are enclosed. Under the law(Illegible Words) may have a civil action for damages of $ 1.500 or more and attorney's fees.

The U. S. Attorney General is authorized to seek injunctive relief against persons who violate the Act. If we received continued Modification of(Illegible Words) by the Car Credit Corporation, we will ask the U. S. Attorney to investigate the matter and to take appropriate action.

ENC.

ID: nht73-2.6

DATE: 05/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Femco Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1973, inquiring whether any Federal laws apply to your building and installation of a man-lift (pictures of which you enclose) in a completed pick-up truck. You state you understand that if the man-lift is installed on a completed vehicle, you are not considered the final-stage manufacturer.

Based on the information you have provided us, we believe your interpretation to be correct. It does not appear that you have altered the pick-up truck in a way that would make your company responsible for conformity with Federal safety standards or regulations.

The NHTSA has proposed certain requirements for vehicle alterers (copy enclosed). These requirements would very likely apply to you, when effective, if the addition of the man-lift occurs before the purchase of the pick-up truck for a purpose other than resale.

ID: nht73-2.7

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Vanguard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1973, requesting further information about the relationship of the Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the Vanguard electric vehicle.

You ask the following questions:

"1. Would prior commitments made before May 16, 1973, be sufficient for a temporary exemption?"

Previously-existing commitments for parts that do not conform to systems covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards may be presented to support the argument that compliance as of January 1, 1974, would cause substantial economic hardship. No temporary exemption has ever been requested on this basis alone, however, and whether an exemption would be granted solely on this basis would depend upon other facts in the case.

"2. Can VANGUARD be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and what relief would that give us from adhering to federal safety standards?"

As you know, a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is defined in part as a vehicle "with special features for occasional off-road operation." Intent for incidental off-road use is insufficient to qualify a passenger car as an MPV. The manufacturer makes the initial determination whether a vehicle is a passenger car or whether it is a MPV, incorporating "special features" for occasional off-road operation not normally found on a passenger car. If he asks our views, we will provide them. If he does not, we are not precluded from questioning his vehicle categorization at a later date if it appears erroneous to us. The Vanguard appears to be a passenger car, but we would be willing to consider the matter further if you think it possesses unique off-road features.

"3. How can we incorporate safety improvements in our vehicles prior to January 1, 1974, that may put us over the weight limit without violating law?"

When you have completed a definitive review of your compliance problem areas you may apply for such exemptions as appear necessary. If safety improvements result in a vehicle weight that exceeds 1,000 pounds, you may legally market a vehicle if it has been exempted before January 1, 1974.

We appreciate your keeping us informed of your program with the Vanguard.

Sincerely,

SEBRING VANGUARD INC.

July 30, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1973, which indicated that you are willing to meet with us to explore various alternatives to federal safety regulations in connection with the VANGUARD Electric Sport Coupe. (49 CFR Part 571) We are pleased of the position you have taken.

We wish to bring you up to date on recent developments, VANGUARD VEHICLES, INC. of Kingston, N. Y. has purchased the right, title and interest in the manufacturing of these vehicles from CLUB CAR, INC. of Augusta, Georgia.

A new corporation; SEBRING-VANGUARD, INC. of Sebring, Florida has completed licensing negotiations with the New York company to manufacture VANGUARDS. A proposed production schedule is enclosed.

Certain component lead-time commitments were entered into prior to the May 16th ruling removing the 1000 pound exemption. In order to facilitate actual marketing of a low-emission vehicle in conjunction with an active program of research and development, we are considering petitioning for a temporary exemption under Part 555 to avoid the economic hardship of non-utilization of the above commitments.

As far as we can determine this is the first company organized solely for the purpose of mass-producing electric on-the-road vehicles since the early 1900's. Competent and experienced personnel are in Sebring now operating, as a team. Companies such as Gould, Prestolite, ESB, Bendix and GE have sent engineers to assist our start-up. A sophisticated electric vehicle laboratory is in operation under the direction of Ronald Gremban, who helped build, and drove Cal Tech's successful entry in "The Great Electric Car Race" between that institution and M.I.T. a few years ago. Our Mechanical Engineering department is headed by Robert Rice of Detroit, who built many of Electric Fuel Propulsion's early experimental vehicles. Our company is well financed and two members of our board are currently chairman of New York Stock Exchange listed firms.

The May issue of Reader's Digest (reprint enclosed) had an article entitled "Is The Electric Car Coming Back?" VANGUARD was featured. The current issue of True magazine has a large photo of VANGUARD on Page 18. As a result of articles such as the above, we have received over 1000 phone calls and over 5000 written requests for more information from interested citizens and companies here and abroad. Negotiations for export to Germany, Japan and Bermuda are underway.

Our staff has made a review of standard numbers 101 through 121. Preliminary opinion indicates standard 103, and part of 104, 105 and 114 may be our only problem areas. Further study will determine if we specifically request your guidance on aspects of the above mentioned standards that could hinder our ability to produce and market.

We request that NHTSA carefully consider any variance from standards which we ask because of inherent limitations of our basic energy source; the lead-acid battery. Any added excess weight seriously diminshes effective utilization of the electricity stored in our vehicles. We believe NHTSA is aware of this. It is our opinion that the most abundant and inexpensive source of energy remaining for personal transportation is the combination of lead and sulphuric acid. Its vast potential to this end should be judiciously used.

One other area we wish to explore is VANGUARD'S classification. The following are various purposes for which VANGUARD is currently used:

Mr. and Mrs. S. E. Cronquist of the Swedish Embassy of Washington, D. C. used their VANGUARD as a family second car.

The Winged-Foot Country Club of Westchester County, New York is using a VANGUARD with specially equipped tires for transportation for the head grounds keeper's transportation around its huge fairways and other acreage.

The City of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida recently purchased a VANGUARD for experimental use by City Meter Maids.

Mr. Sam Kelly of Dearing, Georgia purchased a VANGUARD in April of this year. Mr. Kelly is partially paralyzed on the left side of his body and could not operate a conventional auto. The VANGUARD is currently making his life richer.

Mr. John Paynter of Vineyard Haven on Martha's Vineyard in Mass. uses his VANGUARD to deliver parts from his marina to boat owners and occasionally tows light weight boats from dock to dock.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce has used a VANGUARD at the National Weather Observatory in Sterling, Virginia, for over six months to gather data from the various buildings at the sight. They have recently submitted a bid for two more vehicles.

Rockland Power and Light purchased two VANGUARDS. One for carrying a plant manager around the plant site which enables him to get into areas conventional cars could not, including off-the-road critical areas for occasional surveillance. The other vehicle is being used for multi-purposes including electric meter reading.

Ieland F. Bunch, Sr., of Huntington, W. Va. uses his VANGUARD to show clients various real estate parcels.

A businessman in New Martinsville, W. Va. has a 25 year old son with a hearing impediment. The boy refused to drive a conventional car because of this. He now drives a VANGUARD and his father has written us a thank you letter indicating his son has "come out of his shell".

We have been contacted for further information for potential usage is such diverse activities as Zoo oatrol, pizza deliveries, airport usages and a host of other purposes both on-the-road and off-the-road.

The above leads us to believe that use of our vehicle is so divergent and difficult to categorize that it could indeed be considered a "multi-purpose" vehicle. If this should be the case, Mr. Schneider, who determines if it is so and what is the procedure to classify VANGUARD as "multi-purpose"?

There is one final point we wish to discuss. We are anxious to make our vehicle as safe as possible. Current law may preclude this in that certain safety features we may be able to add prior to the January 1, 1974, deadline may put us slightly over the 1000 pound weight limit. Severe economic hardship could occur if we can't deliver cars prior to January 1, yet under existing law we would be in violation if we don't meet all safety standards and our weight is over 1000 pounds. We would sincerely appreciate any comments you could make concerning this problem.

In summary we would like to know:

1. Would prior commitment made before May 16, 1973 be sufficient for a temporary exemption?

2. Can VANGUARD be classified as a multi-purpose vehicle and what relief would that give us from adhering to federal safety standards?

3. How can we incorporate safety improvements in our vehicle prior to January 1, 1974 that may put us over the weight limit without violating law?

May we hear from you at your earliest convenience?

Sincerely yours,

Robert G. Beaumont -- President

Enclosures

CC: James E. Wilson; Senator James L. Buckley; Senator Jacob Javits

(registered) Vanguard electric car

SPECIFICATIONS for the VANGUARD SPORT COUPE

LENGTH: 96" WIDTH: 45 1/2" WHEEL-BASE: 65" WEIGHT: 980 lbs. CONTROLLER: Vanguard variable voltage speed control. TRANSMISSION: Double reduction gear drive. SUSPENSION: leaf springs; Front & Rear. BODY: Triple-thick fiberglass (rust and corrosion proof). FRAME: Extruded aluminum I-beams (rust and corrosion proof). BRAKES: Hydraulic on both rear wheels plus emergency. SPEED: Maximum and cruising 28 mph. RANGE: 40-60 miles with infinite stops/starts depending on temperature and terrain. ACCELERATION: 0-10, 2.1 secs. -0-15, 4.5 secs. 0-25, 11.6 sec. STANDARD EQUIPMENT: Signal lites, brake lites, stop lites, windshield wiper, headlites, parking lites, emergency flashers, side view mirror, rear view mirror, license plate lite, horn, house current battery charger, AS-1 laminated safety glass windshield, fuel gauge, amp-draw gauge, six 6 volt 106 minute batteries. Available body colors: red, blue, yellow, turquoise & cinnamon.

OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: Two-tone paint (white top), Wheel covers (set of 4), Heater (catalytic), Defroster (electric), Radio and antenna (transistor).

See at: POWR STOP(trademark)

330 South Nevada Colorado Springs, Colorado

Phone: (303) 471-POWR SEBRING Vanguard INC.

July 20, 1973

Charles Zegers -- Electric Vehicle Council

Dear Mr. Zegers:

Bob Beaumont handed me the enclosed Electric Auto Association Newsletter and requested that I write to you for some assistance from your office.

Although you may already have read the newsletter, we do want to bring attention to the circled paragraph regarding cancellation of three show dates. As the article reads, P.S. & F., a Co-sponsor of three shows high-lighting electric cars, dropped out of the program because it felt that the electric vehicle in some way conflicted with the energy crisis.

We would appreciate anything you can do to change this decision or at least clear up what appears to be a serious misunderstanding on the part of P.G.&E and the consumer. In view of the nature of the electric vehicle, popular use of this means of transportation would actually help alleviate the energy crisis. We have seen estimates, confirmed by experts, that it takes less than one gallon of low-grade fossil fuel to generate the electricity necessary to charge the batteries of a VANGUARD Electric Sport Coupe to propel it forty to sixty miles. This figure compares to as many as six or seven gallons of refined fuel to propel a conventional automobile the same distance. However, this figure assumes that liquid fossil fuels are being used to generate the electricity; if all or part of the energy comes from hydroelectric generators or nuclear reactors which do not pollute, the energy demand on our resources is even less. Furthermore, there is no energy crisis from the burning of coal or shale since it is estimated that that source of energy could accomodate us for another one or two thousand years. All of this means that more electric vehicles equals fewer conventional automobiles. Hence, the demand for highly-refined fossil fuel slows down and assures us a longer lasting supply of that particular energy resource.

Another point to convey to the decision-makers at P.G. & E. and consumers is that most electric vehicles are charged during the nights and early morning hours when demand for energy is little. This fact is significant in several ways. With minimal demand for electricity during part of the twenty-four hour day, the power generating facilities are obliged to slow down to a virtual crawl and then work back to a high output capacity when the demand reaches its peak. In the same way that an automobile uses more gasoline in start-stop traffic, so also does a generating power plant run inefficiently. A wide use of electric vehicles would obviously save the power plants and consumer money and natural resources because this start-up slow-down pattern would be minimized.

To reiterate, generating equipment, which represents a huge capital outlay for the utility company and hence a considerable chunk of the consumers electric bill would be used more steadily and efficiently if electric vehicles were charged at night. Continuing the analogy of the automobile, in the same way that a Chevrolet registers better gas-milage in highway driving, so also does a generator get better fuel-power if it is run at a constant rate over a twenty-four hour period, and while the efficiency improves, the utility revenues increase, thus permitting a substantial cut-back in utility rates and an additional savings to the consumer.

With these points in mind, F.G.&.E. might raise another campaign for the electric vehicle. The consumer should also understand these cost comparisons. With the help of your office, we can accomplish this goal.

Sincerely yours,

Robert M. Stone II -- Assistant to the President

CC: Director of Public Relations -- Pacific Gas and Electric; Morley G. Molden -- American Electric Power Corp.

Electric Auto Association news Letter

VOL. IV No. 4

CANCELLATION OF THREE SHOW DATES

We regret to announce that the co-sponsor, PG&E, felt that they should not be urging a greater use of electric power during this time when there is a serious potential power shortage. These displays were to have been during three days each month during July, August and September.

It is hoped that each chapter will be able to utilize this time to organize a local display in shopping centers, or county fairs. Try to get adequate publicity to tell the public of available alternatives for personal transportation while there is the gasoline shortage.

Here is a good chance for electric car enthusiasts to encourage others to join us and to think about building, showing, and using electric cars.

A Reader's Digest

Reprint

Condensed from Discovery Harland Manchester

Is the Electric Car Coming Back?

Clean and quiet, but too poky for the highway, the electrics may yet catch on for short-haul, stop-and-go work in the world's pollution-choked cities

Vanguard electric

Prototype Battronic delivery van

At Kingston, N.Y., I recently poked around the streets in a snappy little automotive midget that had just room enough for two people. It had a top speed of about 28 miles per hour, no carburetor or radiator, and it gave off no exhaust and was almost silent. The car was a Vanguard electric, with which its producer hopes to invade the suburban second-car market.

A few days later, at Boyertown, Pa., I rode in another battery- powered vehicle a prototype of a fleet of 100 to be market-tested as delivery vans.

On a Miami Beach shopping mall, where gas-belching cars are banned, I paid a dime for a ride in an electric surrey with a fringe on top. In a Tampa retirement colony, I borrowed a battery-powered buggy to visit friends. And throughout the country, I've seen electric-powered golf carts used for such non-sporting purposes as delivering papers, transporting, VIPs at airports, and ferrying major-league baseball pitchers to the dugout.

Every now and then someone asks, "Is the electric car coming back?" The answer seems to be: "It's already here." The poky-paced electric doesn't belong on superhighways, but many short-trip drivers who like economy and clean air are finding the relaxing and pleasant vehicle to be just what the doctor ordered.

The Vanguard electric looks a little like a jeep in a ten-gallon hat. It has a body of colored fiber glass, weighs about 980 pounds, and its makers promise a range, between battery charges, of 40 to 60 miles, depending on temperature and terrain. Its charger can be plugged into any household circuit at home or on the road. Recharging its lead-acid batteries takes five to seven hours and costs about 21 cents. The Vanguard's developer, 40-year-old Robert G. Beaumont, used to run an automobile agency. Five years ago, he caught the electric bug, teamed up with a Georgia manufacturer of golf carts and is now turning out the Vanguards at a price of $ 1986.

Beaumont's buggy is likely to have plenty of competition. Thirty companies, including Ford, General Motors, Westinghouse and General Electric, are reported to have short-range, low-speed electric vehicles either in the prototype or limited production stage. A 1972 survey by the Electric Vehicle Council indicated that 55 million Americans would be interested in buying such a vehicle if it were available for under $ 2000. Curiously, the 18-to-29-year-olds showed the greatest interest of any age group.

This surge of interest in electric vehicles comes at a time when the internal combustion engine used in most of today's cars faces a Washington ultimatum to cut down on emissions. Many experts frankly despair of cleaning up the old "I.C.," and scientists and engineers are studying substitutes. The Wankel, * the gas turbine, the steam engine, the stratified-charge engine, the electric and others have their advocates. But none of them is without serious drawbacks. Meanwhile, every day 12,000 additional cars join the polluting procession on our nation's roads.

* See "Watch Out for the Winkel!" The Reader's Digest, January '72.

No magic wand will solve the problem, but there is some hope for a piecemeal approach. Exhaust pollution is by no means geographically uniform. Walk through the commercial streets of any city when trucks are making deliveries and you will inhale exhaust fumes at their worst. At low speeds and when idling, internal combustion engines pour out far more gaseous garbage than they do at high speeds on the open road. Thus a serious auto pollution problem is caused by the millions of short-trip urban vehicles -- delivery vans, buses, mail trucks, refuse trucks, taxis -- that travel less than 100 miles a day at average speeds of less than 30 m.p.h. Why should these city-confined vehicles have the capability, never used by most of them, of barging hundreds of miles non-stop over superhigh-ways at 75 miles an hour?

All cars and all trucks need not be alike. The Battronic Truck Corp. of Boyerton, Pa., is now building 100 electric work vehicles adaptable for either passengers or cargo. The program is sponsored by the Electric Vehicle Council, and 57 cooperating utility companies will buy and test the vehicles under various conditions to obtain operating data. The Post Office, the government, the bread man, the dry cleaner, the parcel-delivery company, the TV-repair man are considered prime candidates for this work horse. Gasoline vehicles on such runs spend up to 85 percent of their time idling. Electric cars do not idle; when you take your foot off the pedal, the power cuts off.

Depending on speed, the new trucks will run from 30 to 68 miles on one battery charge. Actually, however, their range is unlimited because of an ingenious, self-contained, multi-battery pack that slides out of the truck-bed like a bureau drawer. A man with a special carrier can put in a fresh, fully charged pack in five minutes.

Such battery-powered vans are already in regular service in Great Britain, where about 60,000 are registered. A London dairy firm which used hundreds of horse-drawn carts before World War II now operates a fleet of about 4000 specially designed electrics in the Greater London area. Some of the trucks have been in service for 25 years, and are said by the firm to surpass gasoline-fed trucks in low maintenance costs and reliability. And, according to customers who appreciate their early-morning quietness, they "travel on stocking feet."

On the Continent, about 10,000 electric cars are on the road, most of them delivery vans. A prominent German utility firm, RWE, is sponsoring the development of electric vehicles for use in congested urban areas. The goal: for 10 to 20 percent of all new vehicles in Germany to be electric by 1980. Volkswagen, the first big automobile firm to build modern electrics, is supplying part of the trial fleet. In Japan, too, where urban air pollution is probably the world's worst, a program to build electric cars for various uses is under way, sponsored by the government.

The electric car may seem like a radical innovation; actually, it was in use before the internal combustion engine. A primitive battery-driven car appeared in England in 1837; improved electrics were in use in Boston and Des Moines in the late 19th century; and by 1899 several hundred electric taxicabs were operating in New York City. Before World War I, "bird-cage" electric carriages piloted by elegant ladies were a familiar sight in many American towns. More than 100 manufacturers of that era sold a total of some 10,000 electrics a year. As late as the 1930s, many battery-driven panel delivery trucks were in use in American cities. But the range of all these electrics was short, their speed low, their batteries heavy, and they could not compete with the burgeoning gasoline engine.

Batteries that limit speed and range remain the bugaboos of today's electric vehicles. Engineers throughout the world are working on substitutes for today's lead-acid variety, but nothing satisfactory has yet been found. A few years ago, I rode in a car equipped with silver-zinc batteries. It had fast acceleration and cruised at 60 miles an hour. But the silver in its batteries cost $ 20,000. (The electric cars used by the astronauts on the moon also had silver-zinc batteries -- and cost more than $ 12 million apiece, including research and development.) If a superior battery of reasonable cost can be developed, the electric vehicle may indeed become a highway car. Meanwhile, as pollution's fetid miasma spreads in widening circles, some 20 million short-trip vehicles in cities and suburbs could be replaced by the kinds of electric cars now available.

ID: nht73-2.8

DATE: 01/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E.T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Fire Equipment Manufacturers' Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht73-2.9

DATE: 09/10/73

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cannon's Cycle Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert Aubuchon of this agency has asked us to respond to our recent inquiry whether the Solex motor bicycle is a "motor vehicle" under our regulations, and, if so, how we would categorize it. You are also interested in knowing how our views affect South Carolina's proposed redefinition of bicycle.

Since the Solex is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, specifically a "motorcycle". As such, it must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motorcycles", and be so certified by its manufacturer. The only such standard currently in effect is No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, but standards on controls (No. 122) and braking (No. 123) will become effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974 respectively.

While the proposed South Carolina redefinition of "bicycle" appears to encompass the Solex, the State by so doing could neither relieve the manufacturer from the obligation of complying with Federal motorcycle safety standards, nor impose requirements different from Standards Nos. 108, 122, and 123 as to those aspects of performance covered by the Federal standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht73-3.1

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adolph Kunasicwicz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information concerning the existence of penalties for removal of the required certification label from a motor vehicle has been forwarded to us by the Federal Trade Commission.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a certification label, which under NHTSA regulations includes the name of the manufacturer and the date of manufacture, be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Although removal of this lable does not carry a criminal penalty of either fine or imprisonment, a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 is specified in certain situations.

ID: nht73-3.10

DATE: 01/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1972, concerning the definition of "head impact area" in 49 CFR 571.3(b).

Your question is whether the lower portion of the dashboard depicted in your letter is within the head impact area. Without knowing the interior dimensions of the vehicle, we cannot give you a definite answer. We can, however, describe the circumstances under which the lower part of the dash might be within the head impact area.

Under paragraphs (a) through (c) of the definition, the test device is pivoted forward about specified centers until it contacts the vehicle. These contact points, which together comprise the head impact area, are divided into two groups, those above the lower line of the windshield glass (paragraph (b)), and those below (paragraph (c)). Although the measurement of the head impact area is a continuous process, the separation of the contact points into two groups was accomplished by paragraphs that are not parallel in structure. This has caused some confusion.

The intent of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition might have been expressed in a single paragraph, reading as follows:

With the pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension at each value allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, pivot the measuring device from a vertical position forward and downward through

all arcs in vertical planes to 90 degrees each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.

In our opinion it would be appropriate for you to employ this procedure to determine whether any part of the lower dash pad in your drawing falls within the head impact area. The goal of your evaluation would be to determine whether it is possible for the test device to be pivoted downward so that it contacts the lower pad without first contacting the upper pad. If at a particular point the device contacts the upper pad, and if the device is at its minimum length of 29 inches and its pivot point is on the seating reference point, then the area of the lower pad directly beneath that contact point would not be contactable and would not be a part of the head impact area. If, however, there is a point at which the head form in its downward arc would miss the upper pad and contact the lower pad, the lower pad would at that point be within the head impact area. It is quite possible that some points on the lower pad would be within the head impact area, while others would not.

ID: nht73-3.11

DATE: 01/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1972, requesting an opinion as to whether certain identification marks and certification statements Eastman Chemical plans to use in marketing Uvex plastic sheet will conform to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", as amended November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), and to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which requires the certification of motor vehicles and equipment as conforming to applicable standards. You submit two sample markings: one for use by Eastman when it sells that material to further manufacturers, whom you refer to as "fabricators", and one for use by persons other than Eastman. Similarly, you submit two certification statements, one for use by Eastman, and the other for use by its customers.

Based upon our previous dealings with Eastman regarding this product, it does not seem to us that a person other than Eastman Chemical can be considered the "fabricator" of Uvex sheet. The term "fabricate", which is used along with "laminate and temper" to distinguish prime glazing material manufacturers from other manufacturers, is used in the standard in its ordinary dictionary meaning, which we consider to be "manufactures" or "creates". Accordingly, we have assumed Eastman to be the prime manufacturer of the material in answering the questions you raise.

The markings which you indicate will be used by Eastman will conform to the requirements of paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 205 (assuming the letters and numbers conform to the size requirements of Section 6 of ANS Z26). If the material is to be used as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper Eastman would be required, after April 1, 1973, to conform to paragraph S6.2 as well, by including in the mark Eastman's assigned DOT code number.

The label stamp you will supply to your customers will conform to the requirements of S6.4.

With respect to the statements you plan to use for certification purposes, we believe them to be unnecessarily ambiguous, and therefore to be of doubtful legal effect in meeting the certification requirement. It is the responsibility of Eastman to certify the conformity of the product to the standard. The basis for that certification is the manufacturer's entire process from design to final production. Tests which show that the material conforms are only one factor in the situation, and reference to them in the certification statement is inappropriate. We feel similarly with respect to your statement that you certify the material as meeting "high manufacturing standards". We recommend you certify with the statement, "This material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." In cases where the material will be altered by other manufacturers, they can, where possible, allow this label to remain in place, or affix a new label with the same statement.