NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam2125

Dear Mr. Butler: I am writing in response to your September 22, 1975, letter concernin safety standards applicable to your 1975 Ford Custom Wagon. Your letter was referred to this agency by Senator Magnuson.; I am enclosing a brochure entitled *Standards* which briefly lists th Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the vehicles to which they apply.; Most of the standards were initially applied to passenger cars becaus they accounted for the vast majority of traffic deaths and injuries. Your Custom Wagon is classified for the purposes of our standards as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV). Each particular type of vehicle, such as a car, small or large truck, van, bus, or motorcycle, has its own design characteristics and configuration, with widely different causes of crash injury and fatality. Since the original Federal standards were established in 1967, effective January 1, 1968, we have been in the process of extending the applicability of our current standards and of preparing new standards where appropriate to other vehicle types, including MPV's. For example, effective January 1, 1976, all trucks and MPV's with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to be equipped with combination lap and shoulder belts with inertial retractors, just as has been required of passenger cars since September 1973. With the constantly improving accident investigation information on how and why particular injuries occur in particular types of vehicles, we expect to be able to determine which safety items are necessary and will do the most good on all vehicles. We will then issue appropriate standards as rapidly as possible.; I appreciate your concern over the safety of our motor vehicles. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: 7271-2

Mr. Ray Wyatt
5207 N. 33rd St.
Phoenix, AZ 85018

Dear Mr. Wyatt:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines "motor vehicle" as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... ." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards.

Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale.

If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#567 d:10/14/92

ID: nht92-3.18

DATE: October 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Wyatt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/1/92 from Ray Wyatt to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7271)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines "motor vehicle" as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... ." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards.

Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply

with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale.

If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/90

FROM: BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES

TITLE: U.S. CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT S; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

TEXT: Four Tampa Bay shops sued for violating safety codes

-- In a move that could cripple Florida's booming auto-tint industry, the federal government has sued four Tampa Bay tint shops for violating national traffic safety codes.

But dealers say they are in compliance with Florida's own law on window tinting and vow to fight for more relaxed tinting standards.

The U.S. Justice Department, on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, filed four separate lawsuits Wednesday in federal court in Tampa.

Named as defendants are Seminole Solar Systems, Inc., 69 Ulmerton Road in Largo; Window Kote, 3801 16th St. N in St. Petersburg; Solar Graphics Inc. 3337 22nd Ave. S in St. Petersburg; and Allied Glass Tint Inc., 1404 N. Armenia in Tampa. Two Orlando -area tint shops also were sued in separate federal court actions in Orlando.

Each complaint charges the businesses with installing window film on cars that allows less than 70 percent of natural light to pass through. Each shop has tinted at least 800 cars since 1986, the suits claim, making each shop liable for $ 800,000 in fines, the maximum allowed under the relevant federal regulation.

Drivers of cars already tinted would not be affected by the lawsuit, but could still be ticketed by police enforcing Florida's statute on window tint.

Tim Hurd, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman in Washington D.C., said an investigation begun in July 1987 found a large concentration of tint dealers operating in Central Florida.

The lawsuits are the first and only of their kind, Hurd said.

Auto tinting "presents a safety problem because it reduces the ability to see what's coming at the car," Hurd said. "We've also had complaints from state law enforcement officials."

Police have long disliked the practice of tinting car windows because it makes it difficult to see inside vehicles.

But the treatment remains extremely popular with drivers in Sun Belt states, who say the window film protects interiors, reduces heat and glare, and makes cars look better.

Phil Hoffman owns Window Kote in Largo and franchises three other shops under that name. His Largo shop tints about 4,000 cars a year. He said Wednesday that he was surprised by the lawsuits.

Drivers of cars already tinted would not be affected by the lawsuit, but could still be ticketed by police enforcing Florida's statute on window tint.

Hoffman said the four area shops named as defendants all voluntarily allowed federal transportation officials to inspect their records in 1988. He said they were told at the time that their installations violated the federal regulation, but that his own attorney said since Florida law allowed the darker tint, the practice was legal.

A 1984 Florida statute allows tinting that allows as little as 35 percent of natural light to enter front side windows, and that allows as little as 18 percent of outside light through back windows. No tinting is allowed on windshields.

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: 11379ADRN

Mr. Jon R. Jacobson, Claims Investigator
Risk Management & Insurance Department
Pinellas County Schools
301 Fourth St., S.W., Box 2942
Largo, FL 34649-2942

Dear Mr. Jacobson:

This responds to your letter concerning the transportation of students in school buses and other vehicles and the safety standards which apply to these vehicles. You asked for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA) definition of "passenger car," and in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you also asked for NHTSA's definition of an MPV. You further inquired how one can determine whether an MPV meets the passenger car safety standards.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety , NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles. We require any person selling a new vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is certified to all applicable FMVSSs. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS specifies the motor vehicles to which it applies.

The vehicle definitions we use for purposes of applying the FMVSSs are set forth at Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.3. "Passenger car" is defined in that section as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is also defined in that section 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.

Under Chapter 301, a motor vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If the vehicle is an MPV, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle

meets the FMVSSs applicable to MPVs, but it need not certify compliance with FMVSSs, or portions of FMVSSs, that apply only to passenger cars. In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. Examples are Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, and Standard No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems.

There is no easy way to determine the extent to which a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer for information about a particular MPV's conformance with the passenger car standards.

You asked for "a list of the present vehicles that conform to [Federal] standards." NHTSA does not keep such a list. The law requires each new vehicle to meet all applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, a manufacturer who sells new passenger cars or MPVs in the United States must ensure that its vehicles conform to all applicable FMVSSs or be subject to substantial legal penalties, including the responsibility to recall the vehicle and remedy the nonconformance free of charge.

You also ask whether there are differences between the State's definition of "passenger car" and NHTSA's definition. While the State may choose to define "passenger cars" differently than NHTSA, it cannot thereby alter the applicability of the FMVSSs to a particular vehicle. It is NHTSA's definition that determines whether a vehicle will be subject to the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars or to those applicable to MPVs.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our December 26, 1995 letter to Ms. Jane Thornton Mastrucci, attorney for the Dade County School Board, which addresses issues similar to those you have raised. Further, because you asked about requirements for pupil transportation, I have enclosed a question-and- answer information sheet on frequently asked questions about NHTSA=s school bus requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:vsa#571.3 D:2/26/96

ID: nht88-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance Product Development 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October 17, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the 1989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulat ions. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine i s turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equip ment that the standard requires (S4.1.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our unders tanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustme nt positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other-hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108 DRIVER ADJUSTMENT OF PASSENGER CAR HEADLAMPS

Dear Ms. Jones:

Jaguar Cars Ltd. of Coventry, England, manufactures passenger cars for worldwide markets. For UK and European road vehicles of all types it will be required, by EEC Directive 76/756 (as amended) Paragraph 4.2.6, to fit a system for maintaining headlamp d ip beam (passing beam) vertical alignment. If this is not achieved by power operated suspension levelling, then either an automatic lamp-levelling system or a control operable from the driving seat must be provided.

Jaguar will fit an electrically operated lamp-levelling system, operable from the drivers seat, to the XJ-S model range on all cars for the United Kingdom and for Europe from Job 1 1989 model year. Jaguar would like to fit this system to cars supplied fo r the USA market.

Jaguar believes that this will not contravene or compromise any aspect of compliance with FMVSS 108 for the following reasons:

1. In a front-engine passenger car, the only adjustment required after the initial aim in the "driver only" condition is downward. (This may not be valid for rear engine cars or for heavy trucks).

2. The lamps will be compatible with the use of mechanical aimers as defined in FMVSS 108 and the sub-referenced SAE J.602. New semi-sealed light units for the USA models will conform with all applicable requirements of FMVSS 108. (Distinct conditions of light units will be used for U.S. and for Europe but they will be designed to fit commonised mountings and therefore will enable use to be made of the lamp levelling feature.)

3. The lamp mounting will be designed to meet the torque deflection test of SAE J.580.

4. A mechanical adjustment facility for manufacturing tolerances and an initial alignment will be fitted to each lamp and will be operable in the manner required by SAE J.580.

5. Subsequent to the initial alignment as defined in lighting inspection code SAE J.599, the only adjustment operable from the driving seat will be downward. Because the lamp provides both passing and driving beams this will enable the driver to adjust t he beams downward if necessitated by heavy rear seat, trunk, or trailer hitch loading. It is impossible to adjust the beams to a higher position than the datum setting by the operation of the control from the drivers seat.

Even if the driver does not use the control under the conditions outlined above, then the dazzle problem would never be worse than that created by conventionally mounted lamps. What the lamp levelling system would provide is the opportunity to eliminate dazzle that would otherwise occur.

6. Jaguar will explain in the owner literature the correct use of the control by the driver. Jaguar will also instruct dealers and servicing outlets of the need to zero the drivers control before checking or adjusting beam alignment.

For the foregoing reasons, Jaguar believe that no aspect of FMVSS 108 or the subreferenced SAE standards is contravened by this proposed installation. However, because of design and manufacturing leadtimes we request your confirmation that our interpreta tion is correct.

We believe we have explained all relevant features of the system but if further information or clarification is required, please contact me by telephone.

Sincerely,

C.D. Black CDB:as Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance, Product Development

ID: aiam4215

Dear Senator Cranston: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Raymond Kesler. He aske for this agency's response to a letter from Mr. Robert R. Philips concerning the bi-focal mirror developed by Mr. Kesler. In his letter, Mr. Phillips asked whether an outside rearview mirror, which has both a planar surface of unit magnification and a convex surface, complies with Standard No. 111, *Rearview MIrrors*. I regret the delay in responding to this letter.; As we understand the information supplied by Mr. Phillips, the bi-foca mirror would be installed on the driver's side of motor vehicles to give the driver a wider field of view by combining a convex mirror and a planar mirror as the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side. The convex portion would abut the planar portion and be located to the left of the planar portion. Thus, both normal and wide-angle vision would be provided at the same horizontal viewing level.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of vehicles or their equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as rearview mirrors, comply with any applicable requirements. A manufacturer certifies that its equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.; Mr. Phillips asked this agency to confirm his interpretation that thi bi-focal mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 if its planar or unit magnification surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion. The 19.5 square inch requirement is one applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (other than schoolbuses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Those types of vehicles are required by S6.1 of the standard either to have a set of inside and outside rearview mirrors that comply with the requirements applicable to passenger cars or to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets that size requirement, is located on a vehicle so as to provide the required view and is adjustable in the required manner, it complies with S6.1.; There are no minimum size requirements for unit magnification outsid rearview mirrors on passenger cars. Mr. Phillips' mirror can be installed on the driver's side of passenger cars if the mirror's unit magnification portion, independently of the convex portion, meets the field of view and mounting requirements specified in S5.2.; In one drawing accompanying Mr. Phillips' letter, there appears to be warning on the planar portion of his bi-focal mirror stating 'Objects Appear Within Markers: Caution.' There is no requirement in Standard No. 111 for such a warning. The agency is concerned that the message conveyed by this warning is unclear and could confuse motorists. The warning ('CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here') in Mr. Phillips' other drawing seems more easily understood. He might consider providing purchasers with written instructions explaining that the purpose of the message is to warn drivers that the appearance of a vehicle in the convex portion of the mirror means that the vehicle is so close that a lane change would be unsafe.; Unit magnification and convex mirrors on other types of vehicles mus meet the specific performance and location requirements for those types of vehicles, as set out in the standard. Again, please note that a vehicle manufacturer installing a bi-focal mirror on different types of vehicles must ensure that the unit magnification portion of the mirror meets any applicable requirements of the standard independently of the convex portion.; If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 fo a particular vehicle type, then it may be installed on new vehicles of that type. It may also be installed on used vehicles of that type.; Conversely, if the mirror does not meet those requirements, then it ma not be installed on new vehicles. Further, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses would be prohibited from installing it on used vehicles. However, the Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own used vehicle.; Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install an product they want on their used vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's rearview mirrors with the performance or location requirements of Standard No. 111.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack E. Eanes -- Chief, Vehicle services, State of Delaware, Department of Public Safety, Division of motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 10-20-89 to T. Vinson from J. E. Eanes (OCC 3822)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR S571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirement s set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glaz ing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that th e CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle doe s not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law.

This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards aft er such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CH MSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that Stake.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does no t purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and oper ate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifi cations commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in t he State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequenc es that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle s afety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)

366-2992.

ID: 2636y

Mr. Jack E. Eanes
Chief, Vehicle Services
State of Delaware
Department of Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
P. O. Box 698
Dover, Delaware, 19903

Dear Mr. Eanes:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:108#205#VSA d:7/3l/90