ID: nht91-3.14

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary P. Toth -- General Motors Corporation Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Gary P. Toth to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5757)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR).

The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors "are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)." S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches.

Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209.

You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe.

We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) (complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension) did NOT adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode.

The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j).

ID: nht95-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 201)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is in regard to a request for legal interpretation falling under the regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201- Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. MGA Research Corporation is an independent automotive safety te sting laboratory. FMVSS 201 falls under my testing responsibilities at MGA. Recently, I was requested to conduct FMVSS 201 impacts on a front bucket seat.

The seat has an inertial latch on the recliner. During the first few tests, the seat back dumped forward due to the inertial latch not engaging. Then, my customer requested that the inertial latch and adjustable tracks be welded in place to avoid th e previous test result. I conducted a test under such conditions and the seat back did not dump forward. In my final test report, my customer would like me to make a statement that says that this seat "passes" FMVSS 201 and all its criteria are met. I would like to obtain a legal interpretation of FMVSS 201 relative to pre- and post-test latch position and its view on inertial latches.

Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: aiam4893

Dear Mr. Farr: This responds to your letter of June 19, 1991 requesting information regarding the method used to calculate the angle specified in section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210. Your first question asks whether the agency uses a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol when calculating the angle formed by the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage. NHTSA uses a two dimensional protocol for these purposes. The agency recognizes that, as stated in your letter, this does not take into account the transverse coordinate of these two points. However, the agency does not believe that use of a two dimensional protocol diminishes the safety benefits offered by the safety belt system. Your second question asks whether the agency has made any interpretations of the phrase 'the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage.' The agency has never made a generally applicable interpretation of this phrase. When manufacturers have requested an interpretation for a specific design, the agency has indicated which point we would consider 'the nearest contact point.' If you have a specific design that concerns you, we can make a similar interpretation if you send us a diagram. It is always a pleasure to hear from representatives of Transport Canada. We believe our cooperation has been mutually beneficial for many years. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht67-1.10

DATE: 08/01/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Sears, Roebuck & Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 20, 1967, concerning restraining straps for children.

Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies shall meet the requirements of Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR 9) (31 F.N. 11528). For your convenience a copy of the Federal Register containing the seat belt standard is enclosed.

The standard affects any seat belt manufactured for sale after February 23, 1967, including Type 3 belts which are designed for children between 8 months and 6 years of age. The problem you discuss in your letter, that of manufactures who consider their devices something less than seat belts, and so label them, is under review to determine if there is any violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965.

Sincerely,

June 20, 1967

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Attention: Dr. Haddon

Dear Dr. Haddon

Sears Automotive Department carries only a child's harness that meets your new federal safety standard, but many competitors are carrying inexpensive restraining straps which obviously do not meet the standard. We would like to know the position that the federal government will take regarding them. If inexpensive restraining straps state on the package clearly that "this is not a safety harness but only a child's restraining strap" or words to that effect, will they be legal since the federal standard does not apply to them? A statement regarding this form you will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

C.M. HATTERSLEY, Buyer -- Auto Parts and Accessories, Department 628,SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

ID: nht95-7.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/3/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS K. O'CONNOR TO NHTSA (OCC 11189)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter asking about seat belt requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to meet S4.3.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1984-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; NONE; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars Inc. -- C. Diane Black, Legislation and Compliance

TITLE: NHTSA RESPONSE TO PETITION

TEXT:

February 9, 1984

RE: FMVSS 101 Docket 1-18, Notice 23 7-27 Notice 24

Dear Ms. Steed:

On December 22, 1982, BL Technology Limited submitted a petition to your predecessor regarding a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Controls and Displays.

We are nearing the point of no return with a new model where "substantially resemble" and ISO parking brake symbol become extremely important.

I have attached one copy of our 1982 request and need to know if you and your staff require any other information from us to allow a decision on this request.

Sincerely,

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation & Compliance

CDB:as Attach.

22nd December 1982 Mr. R. Peck, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street SW, WASHINGTON DC 20490, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Peck

FMVSS 101 Controls & Displays Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Dockets 1-18, Notice 23 70-27; Notice 24)

The following petition is submitted on behalf of BL PLC (Cars Group) manufacturers of Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rover and Triumph cars.

We refer to the NHTSA proposal to update FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, by adding or modifying several symbols to bring the standard into harmony with the latest documents promulgated by the International Standards Organization.

As manufacturers of automobiles for markets throughout the world, we strongly support proposals that lead to the harmonization of vehicle standards. Notwithstanding this principle, we also feel that vehicle standards should not impede the introduction of new technology into the automobile.

The size and shape of symbols for controls, indicators and telltales is constrained by the ISO grid pattern, and in general, the shape of symbols is defined by a template in the display, the shape and continuity of which can be readily controlled. However, with the introduction of Informational Readout Displays and their associated 'dot matrix' character generation system, exact reproduction of smooth continuous curved shapes or lines may not be possible. The drivers recognition of such displays is not adversely affected and the ability to present additional information selectively, whilst not saturating the driver with an array of individual displays, has distinct economic advantages.

In Docket 1/18 Notice 13 the Administration recognized that minor deviations such as we have described should be permitted, provided the symbols so produced substantially resemble those in Table 2. To give effect to the Administration's position we therefore petition that S.5.2.3 be amended by the addition of a final sentence:-

'The provisions of this Section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2.'

With regard to the specific NHTSA request for comments on the use of a parking brake symbol, we request that the ISO symbol should be permitted as an alternative to words when a separate parking brake indicator lamp is provided.

Yours sincerely,

M. W. Lewis, Chief Engineer, Admin. & External Affairs

MWL/KD/VLS/A70/2e

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation and Compliance Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in response to your letter in which you request information on the status of your Petition for Rulemaking on Controls and Displays submitted December 22, 1982, and granted on December 12, 1983.

Your petition along with several others is being reviewed by a Task Force set up by the Administrator. Its purpose is to rewrite FMVSS No. 101 to reflect changes in technology which impact the control and display systems planned for future production.

A number of the petitioners have requested modifications to permit various Informational Readout Displays or combinations of telltales and displays which are currently not permitted by one or more sections of the standard. Your petition asks for inclusion in the standard of this statement. "The provision of this section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2." While providing manufacturers great latitude for interpretation, this addition would make the standard unenforceable without some design or performance boundaries on the words "substantially resemble."

We do not know how to set these performance limits and thus are retaining the policy established in the preamble to Notice 13 which asked manufacturers to produce symbols which substantially resemble those in the Tables. This approach allows thc agency to treat each symbol noncompliance on a case by case basis by weighing the impact on safety produced by the noncompliance.

To date all symbols have complied with the standard regardless of the technology used to make them visible to the driver. We note that you have not described the limitations of your dot matrix display in quantifiable terms and suspect that, like us, you have not found an easy way to define the relationship between density, color, distance from the driver, etc, vis a vis the perceived shape by the driver.

We have decided to terminate rulemaking on this subject at this time and, thus, will not be placing the words you recommended in the text of the standard. However, although the specific words are not included in the standard, the agency's intent should be clear from Notice 13 and this letter.

ID: nht76-5.1

DATE: 01/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: AB Stil-Industri

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Stil-Industri's December 12, 1975, question whether S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies, in the case of a push-button release, the location and direction of force application used in testing the release under the requirements of S4.3(d)(1). Section S5.2(d)(1) provides in part:

(1) . . .The buckle release force shall be measured by applying a force on the buckle in a manner and direction typical of those which would be employed by a seatbelt occupant. For pushbutton-release buckles, the force shall be applied at least 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening of the buckle in a direction that produces maximum releasing effect. . .

The NHTSA interprets these provisions of S5.2(d)(1) to permit the manufacturer to apply force in the direction and location that provides the best possible mechanical advantage relative to the manufacturer's buckle design. The only limitation in the case of a push-button design is that the manufacturer must not apply the force any closer than 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DECEMBER 12, 1975

GENTLEMEN,

WE ARE A SWEDISH COMPANY PRODUCING SAFETY-BELTS FOR DIFFERENT CARS AND ALL DIFFERENT MARKETS. WE WOULD KINDLY ASK YOU TO HELP US WITH SOME QUESTIONS WE HAVE ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET SECTION (1) IN S.5.2 (D) ABOUT BUCKLE RELEASE.

FROM THE PASSAGE: "THE BUCKLE RELEASE FORCE SHALL BE. . . . .TO:. .. RELEASING EFFECT". WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WHERE ON THE PUSH BUTTON SHALL WE APPLY THE FORCE? IN A POSITION WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR THE SEAT BELT OCCUPANT? IN THE CENTER? 1/8 INCH FROM WHICH EDGE? IN WHAT DIRECTION? THESE QUESTIONS ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR US AND WE AWAIT YOUR REPLY WITH GREAT INTEREST. WE ARE VERY GREATFUL IF YOU COULD ANSWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

SINCERELY YOURS AB STIL-INDUSTRI; HANS SYLVEN -- CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION

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: nht93-4.19

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Kenneth G. Koop -- Risk Control Representative, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency

TO: John Wolmack (Womack) -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Commission

TITLE: Passenger Seat and Airbag Removal

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein to Kenneth G. Koop (A41; Std. 207; Std. 208; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency is a municipal risk pool serving 60 municipalities in Northeastern Illinois.

Several of our member Police Chiefs have inquired as to whether there is a variance procedure that would permit their departments to legally remove the passenger seat and passenger airbag from their police vehicles, and place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place.

It is our position that since the passenger seat will be removed, therefore allowing no passenger in that area, the removal of the passenger side airbag should be permitted.

We would greatly appreciate specific direction regarding these proposed modifications.

ID: 05-005754drn

Scott Molinari, Service Coordinator
North and South America
Terex-Demag GmbH & Co. KG
Dinglerstr. 24
D-66482 Zweibrcken
GERMANY




Dear Mr. Molinari:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether Terex-Demag products that your company imports into the United States are "motor vehicles". You asked four questions, which are addressed below.

You specifically asked that we address whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is a "motor vehicle". You have enclosed brochures (with photographs and diagrams) describing the AC 80-2, as well as brochures for a number of other products.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated.

You first question was whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is considered a "motor vehicle". In response, we note that NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)).

Based on the brochure provided with your letter, we believe the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is substantially similar to the mobile cranes that were the subject of our interpretation letters of March 11, 1999, to Mr. Chun Jo and of October 20, 2003, to Mr. Michael E. Ogle. As in the cases of the products at issue in these letters, for the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane, the use of the highway appears to be merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 to be a "motor vehicle".

I note that while you indicated in your letter that you were particularly concerned about the AC 80-2, you enclosed literature about other products. For the same reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, it is our opinion that the other cranes for which you provided individual brochures, specifically, the AC 500-2, AC 250-1, AC 140, AC 200-1, AC 55, AC 40 City, and AC 30 City are not considered to be "motor vehicles".

Your second question was whether, if the Terex-Demag products are not motor vehicles, they can legally operate on the highway or any other road without "DOT stamps". I note that you stated in your letter that you are having difficulty obtaining 20.5" tires that have the DOT stamp on them. I will therefore assume that you are asking whether your products may legally operate on the highway if they have tires that are not marked "DOT". The marking of "DOT" on a tire constitutes certification by the manufacturer that the tire meets applicable FMVSSs. If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, our regulations would not apply to the vehicle, and it would not be required to have tires that met the FMVSSs. The vehicle could, however, be subject to state regulations.

Your third question concerned our October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Ogle. You ask if there has been a change in the legal position taken in our interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle.

As you are aware, we noted to Mr. Ogle that our interpretations on mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision issued in 1978. We further stated:

Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As of this writing, we have not revisited the issue of whether mobile construction equipment such as that manufactured by Terex-Demag should be considered motor vehicles. Thus, the October 20, 2003 interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle remains unchanged.

Your fourth question is whether there are State laws that "could also warrant the need for DOT stamps on tires of non-motor vehicles". I will assume that in this question, you ask whether there are State laws that require non-motor vehicles to have tires that are certified as meeting NHTSA FMVSSs for tires. You would need to consult the State laws of each of the fifty states to determine the answer to this question.

The enclosed letter of August 16, 2004, to Kelly A. Freeman, Esq. provides additional guidance in determining when products used in construction may be "motor vehicles".

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/23/05