ID: nht95-6.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 23, 1995

FROM: Margaret Fisher, MD -- Kaiser Permanente

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/7/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to James J. Gregorio (VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); A43; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT: I am writing to request authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim in order to accomodate my physical handicap. Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviate a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. Enclosed is a statement from my physician validating my medical condition. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience. Your prompt reply to this painful condition would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Attachment

September 22, 1995

To Whom It May Concern:

Mr. James Gregorio is under my care for tendinitis of the right ankle and both knees. Recovery could take up to several years.

Sincerely yours,

Margaret Fisher, MD Kaiser Permanente

ID: nht95-6.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11123); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/4/77 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, 'NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.'" You ask how "[using] the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combination" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different housings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

ID: nht95-6.56

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. @@ 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former @ 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108 (b) (1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112 (b) (1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a) (2) (A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in @ 30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under @@ 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. @ 30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees F. . ." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.57

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out. You contended that such an activation pattern provides a fail safe pattern i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government & Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM D. L. O'CONNOR TO WALTER K. MYERS (OCC 11043)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

8/9/95

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Tires Manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

United States law requires tire manufacturers themselves to certify that the tires they manufacture for sale in the United States comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no provision in U.S. law for approval or certification by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for implementing the Federal law. NHTSA enforces the standards by randomly selecting and testing approximately 100 passenger car tires and 70 other than passenger car tires per year to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been produced and certified in conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards of the United States.

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signed by S. Wood)

ID: nht95-6.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WILLIAM MEURER (PART 591; RED BOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Our firm has been selected to be the Agent for Service of Process and the United States importer for the Norwegian electric vehicle manufacturer PIVCO AS. Attached please find the original document affirming our designation and acceptance as agent for process.

As you requested, I attach herewith the Statement of Work and the BART Executive Summary which summarize the demonstration program that we will be administering. Five (5) separate California and U.S. agencies have united to provide funding for this project as a prelude to the development of manufacturing of the PIVCO City Bee EV in California. We seek to import the first 12 vehicles under section 591.5(J) and the subsequent 28 vehicles will be fully compliant. The actions we request are:

1) Please withdraw our previous request for a temporary exemption at this time.

2) Permission to import twelve (12) City Bee electric vehicles under CFR section 591.5(J).

3) A waiver from section 591.7(C) which would then allow us to operate these vehicles on the public roadways.

These vehicles will be fully insured and used by a control group of drivers to evaluate the various aspects of this demonstration project. It is vital that these vehicles be allowed to operate on public roads in order to demonstrate the station car concept as proposed in this program. After the two year demonstration project is completed, the non-FMVSS compliant vehicles will either be destroyed or exported under section 591.5(J)(3).

The testing of these electric cars is in the public interest because of the development of a zero emission vehicle and the near term creation of the U.S. manufacturing of it. Attached herewith is the letter of intent between CALSTART and PIVCO defining the goals and stipulations of this collaboration.

Our first shipment of eight (8) vehicles will leave Oslo, Norway on August 30, 1995. I greatly appreciate your prompt attention to our request. Thank-you.

attachments: Letter assigning Agent for Service of Process, Statement of Work, BART Executive Summary, Vehicle Specifications, CALSTART Letter to PIVCO.

Enclosure 1

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590 USA

Oslo, 9 June 1995

Dear Mr. Administrator:

PIVCO AS hereby designates Green Motorworks, Inc. as our United States agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made on our behalf as provided in section 110(e) of the national Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718) and in section 551.45 of the code of Federal Regulations.

PIVCO AS is the manufacturer of the CITY BEE electric vehicle and is located at: PIVCO AS Stanseveien 4 0975 Oslo Norway tel: + 47 22 25 20 50 fax: + 47 22 25 41 20

Our agent for service of process is: Green Motorworks, Inc. 5228 vineland Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91601 tel: (818) 766 3800 fax: (818) 766 3969

Sincerely yours,

PIVCO AS

Jan-Otto Kingdal Manufacturer

Accepted for Green Motorworks, Inc. William Meurer, President Date 6/9/95

Enclosure 2

Statement of Work

The San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration

Summary:

Green Motorworks, Inc. (GMW) is the United States Importer and Agent for Service of Process for PIVCO AS, Norway. In the context of the San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration, GMW will act as the leasing agent to BART and administer the deployment of all vehicles in the program.

BART will enter into a lease agreement with Green Motorworks, Inc. (GMW) to provide 40 electric station cars for a 24 month period. GMW will provide insurance, NHTSA compliance, driver training, vehicle maintenance and complete towing & repair services.

Three vehicles will be held in reserve for a spare for any of the users. Each user will be charged between $ 100 to $ 150 per month per vehicle depending on the extent of use. GMW reserves the right to modify the monthly charge at its discretion.

Purpose:

The purpose of this program is to assess the visability of station cars in use for both home to transit, transit to work, and company pool applications. Vehicle operational costs, user price sensitivity, corporate support, multi-user program viability and vehicle technical assets and failings will be evaluated.

Overview of Vehicle Roll Out Phases

PHASE I, October 1995: Ashby & BART Headquarters

GMW will deliver 12 PIVCO City Bee electric cars. These cars will be the European version which meets all European standards and has a top speed of 40-50 mph.

The cars stationed at the Ashby BART station will be offered to employees of Sybase Systems and Ashby area residents. GMW will administer the user agreements in coordination with the City of Emeryville Projects Coordinator Ignacio Dayrit, Sybase systems and BART Project Manager Victoria Nerenberg.

October 15, 1995: (8) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 5 user cars Site # 2: BART Oakland 2 cars to be used for testing & Police Dept. Headquarters Program Office: Alameda Naval Air 1 spare car Station

December 15, 1995: (4) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 4 cars to add to fleet

PHASE II, Summer 1996: Ashby, Walnut Creek & Colma

GMW will deliver 28 cars with upgraded U.S. manufactured drive trains that will allow these vehicles to reach freeway speeds. These vehicles will be fully compliant with all 1996 NHTSA FMVSS safety requirements. All of these vehicles will be equipped with air-conditioning.

Summer 1996: (28) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 10 user cars Site # 3: Walnut Creek BART Station 8 user cars Site # 4: Colma BART Station 8 user cars & 1 spare car Program Office: Alameda Naval Air Station 1 spare car

Ashby- 11 vehicles delivered to increase fleet to 20. Applications for people requiring a vehicle for a transit to home location commute will be sought. One vehicle to held as spare.

Walnut Creek- BART & PG&E Employees will utilize 8 vehicles stationed at the Walnut Creek BART Station. The cars will be used to demonstrate the commute between the station to home, and the station to workplace.

Colma- GMW will deploy 8 cars to be stationed at the Colma BART station. The vehicles will be used by BART and PG&E employees.

Scope of Services

Vehicle Importation & Validation: GMW will administer the importation of all vehicles to the Port of Oakland, perform pre-delivery inspection and cycle battery systems for proper operation. All data acquisition systems will be installed by PG&E or CALSTART. GMW will prepare and provide to BART all data required by the funding sources.

Administration: William Meurer will serve as the 'Operations Manager' who will be responsible for the following areas: 1) All areas of program 2) Selection of drivers and processing of paperwork. 3) Training and success of drivers. 4) Supervision of Vehicle Service Supervisor 5) Supervision of outside vendors.

GMW will hire a 'Vehicle Service Supervisor' who will work out of space leased with other CALSTART participants at the Alameda Naval Air Station. GMW will provide a gas-powered mobile service/tow vehicle for supervisor. The supervisor will have both a cellular phone and a beeper. A 24-hour Vehicle Service Technician will also be hired to respond to service calls on a 7 day/week 24-hour basis.

Summary of Services & Milestones

Battery Warranty: GMW will administer all battery warranty claims in a timely manner. PIVCO is responsible for all battery upgrades in PIVCO vehicles. GMW is not responsible for assigned battery suppliers to provide replacement batteries within prescribed delivery schedules.

Walk Home Ratio: GMW will provide 24-hour service for failed vehicles to insure that program users will never have to walk home if a vehicle fails. Zero tolerance for walk homes.

Data Retrieval: GMW will monitor data acquisition systems and provide data to PG&E and CALSTART. Other reporting data will be given to a BART selected employee for reporting.

Program Duration: 24 Months starting October 15, 1995 and ending September 15, 1997.

Delivery Schedule: Vehicles 1-8 Delivered to Sites # 1 & # 2 by October 15, 1995 Vehicles 9-12 Delivered to Site # 1 by December 15, 1995 Vehicles 13-40 Projected delivery to Sites # 1, # 3, # 4 by Summer, 1996

User Fees: All user fees will be collected by GMW to apply to the cost of vehicle insurance.

Enclosure 3:

BAY AREA STATION CAR DEMONSTRATION

Executive Summary

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District has attracted $ 1.441 million in outside funding to support the demonstration of 40 electric station cars for two years. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has granted $ 700,000 from AB434 funds (Transportation Fund for Clean Air). Through CALSTART, the project is receiving $ 521,000 from the U.S. Department of Defense (ARPA). Other contributions are $ 100,000 (plus in-kind) from the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), $ 90,000 from the California Energy Commission (CEC), and $ 30,000 from the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS).

The purpose of the demonstration is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by BART patrons. BART will contract with Green Motorworks, Inc. of southern California to lease 40 two-passenger electric vehicles manufactured by the Personal Independent Vehicle Company (PIVCo) of Norway. Twelve non-freeway capable cars will be in operation by December 1995, and twenty-eight freeway capable cars will be in operation by the summer of 1996. The use of the cars will be demonstrated in a variety of settings: home to BART station; station to work site; and pool cars for worksites. Other short trips are allowed.

The program will attempt to maximize pollution reductions per electric vehicle by giving priority to carpoolers. Carpool teams, individuals or their employers will pay Green Motorworks $ 100 to $ 150 per month to use a vehicle (cost depends on the extent of use). An added personal cost would be recharging at home, if needed (the cost should average less than a dollar per night).

BART statistics show that thousands of commuters drive all the way to work each day and end up a mere one to five miles from a BART station. The link from BART to their work site is not well served by either public transportation, taxis, company shuttles or any other service. This untapped commute market is ideal for a station car service, especially if offered in cooperation with major employers who are mandated by statutory air quality regulations to implement employee trip reduction programs.

BART and PG&E will install 20 charging outlets at the Ashby BART station, 8 at the Walnut Creek station, 10 at the Colma station, and 2 at BART headquarters.

Meters will record the amount of electricity used at each station. Data acquisition instrumentation will be on each vehicle as well as personal-use logs. Three vehicles will be held in reserve to be used as replacement cars if necessary.

The delivery of the first eight cars will be by October 15, 1995, four by December 15, 1995, and the subsequent twenty-eight vehicles by August 1996. The cars will be used by BART and PG&E employees and selected public/private participants.

Enclosure 4

PIVCAL Inc. DRAFT 11.06.95

SPECIFICATIONS 12 Vehicles, 8 shipped 30th Aug. 95 Vehicle: 1995 PIVCO, City Bee, Prototypes Color: Blue, red, green Body/frame Thermoplastic, mass colored body/ aluminum space frame, both easily recyclable. Dimensions: L: 9.2 feet, W: 5 feet, H: 5 feet Decals: Provided by BART, can only be placed on side and rear windows. Safety Certificat.: European standard 1994 Weight, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR): approximate: 2200 lb.

Curb Weight: 1750 lb. Capacities: Passenger capacity - 2. Turning diam.: 26 feet Brakes: Disc front w/regen., drum rear. Steering: Rack and pinion. Propulsion Sys: Motor: Solectria or Brusa with AC induction, 3-phase, 2-pole, with optical encoder and peak power of 22 kW.

Controller: Solectria or Brusa Control Systems, DC to three- phase AC inverter. DC/DC Conv.: Curtis 12V 35A Charger: On board 110V AC, or 208V AC 15A Battery Pack: Traction battery voltage full charge, nominal 120 volts DC. Batteries: Maintenance-free, sealed lead acid battery, Optima or an equal battery. Charging Port: Located at front of vehicle w/ retractable cord Transmission: Single speed, non-shift drive. Wheels/Tires: Aluminium 13" x 5"/All-season steel- belted radial tires. HVAC: 1.5 kW electric heating and defrosting Radio: FM/AM Comment: Passenger seats are situated higher than in a conventional car and together with a deep dash and a wide windshield this gives the driver a good view and a comfortable feeling.

This adds also to the safety. PERFORMANCE Top speed: 50 MPH Range: Constant 40 MPH 45 miles.

Adverse driving conditions (Stop and go) 35 miles Acceleration: 0 - 30 MPH 14 seconds 0 - 50 MPH 25 seconds Charging: 5 to 6 hours, 208 Volts AC 7 to 10 hours, 110 Volts AC

SPECIFICATIONS 58 Vehicles 1996 Vehicle: 1996 PIVCO, City Bee, Pre-series Color: To be determined Body/frame Same Dimensions: Same Decals: Same Safety Certificat.: FMVSS 1996 Weight, Same approximate: Capacities: Same Turning diam.: Same Brakes: Same Steering: Same Propulsion Sys: Motor: Advanced D.C. Motors, Inc. and Solectria to be considered.

Controller: Curtis or Solectria DC/DC Conv.: Curtis 12V 35A Charger: To be determined Battery Pack: Same Batteries: Same plus others to be considered Charging Port: Same Transmission: Same Wheels/Tires: Same HVAC: Same plus Air conditioner to be determined Radio: Same Comment: Same PERFORMANCE Top speed: 65 MPH Range: Constant 40 MPH 55 miles.

Adverse driving conditions (Stop and go) 40 miles Acceleration: 0 - 30 MPH 9 seconds 0 - 50 MPH 18 seconds Charging: 5 to 6 hours, 208 Volts AC 7 to 10 hours, 110 Volts AC

Enclosure 5

August 1, 1995

Mr. Jan Otto Ringdal Managing Director PIVCO A/S Stanseveien 4 0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Jan:

This letter expresses our mutual intention with respect to the proposed collaboration between CALSTART, Inc., a California non-profit corporation, and PIVCO A/S, a Norwegian company ("PIVCO"). The goals of our collaboration are two-fold: (1) to enable PIVCO to successfully penetrate the United States market with a "purpose-built" electric vehicle such as the "City Bee" that is both popular and desirable, is specifically adapted to the United States market, fully complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") and other regulatory requirements (each such vehicle being referred to herein as a "U.S. Adapted Vehicle"); and (2) to create jobs and improve air quality in the United States generally, and the State of California in particular.

This letter will set forth the general form and terms of the proposed collaboration and assist us in negotiating and completing an enforceable definitive agreement or agreements as follows:

1. The Definitive Agreement would acknowledge that CALSTART has and will continue to provide PIVCO with valuable technical and marketing assistance in developing a U.S. Adapted Vehicle and to manufacture or assemble the same at a facility to be located in the State of California, including the following:

* assisting PIVCO in securing orders for initial purchases of pre-production and production prototypes of U.S. Adapted Vehicles;

* assisting PIVCO in securing sources of financing and obtaining information towards the goal of achieving compliance of the U.S. Adapted Vehicles with FMVSS;

* assisting PIVCO in identifying U.S. component suppliers for U.S. Adapted Vehicles;

* assisting PIVCO in obtaining information for the business plan for its United States operations, possibly through a wholly-owned or partially-owned U.S.-based subsidiary ("PIVCO U.S./PIVCAL").

2. The Definitive Agreement would provide that in consideration of the past and continuing services provided by CALSTART, then if PIVCO, PIVCO U.S./PIVCAL, or any entity under their direct or indirect control using any patents, know-how or other proprietary information relating to U.S. Adapted Vehicles provided to it by PIVCO or any of its affiliates (a "PIVCO Controlled Licensee"), elects to manufacture, assemble, market, distribute or sell U.S. Adapted Vehicles in the United States, then:

a. PIVCO will agree, or will cause each PIVCO Controlled Licensee to agree, to use its best commercial efforts to build, or have built, and operate an assembly or manufacturing facility for U.S. Adapted Vehicles in the State of California at a site which is mutually agreed upon with CALSTART. [PIVCO or such PIVCO Controlled Licensee will give favorable consideration to the Alameda Naval Air Station as one such site.]

b. For each U.S. Adapted Vehicle which is sold at wholesale or retail in the United States and which is manufactured or assembled by PIVCO or any PIVCO Controlled Licensee at a facility located at a site other than a site that is acceptable to CALSTART, PIVCO or such PIVCO Controlled Licensee will pay CALSTART a royalty in the amount of $ 500, or five per cent (5%) of the suggested retail price of the vehicle, whichever amount is greater. Payments of such royalties will be quarterly, with such payments and a royalty statement to be delivered to CALSTART within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, beginning with the first calendar quarter during which any U.S. Adapted Vehicle is marketed, distributed or sold in the United States. The maximum aggregate payment of such royalties to CALSTART will be $ 4,000,000, provided that over the term of the Agreement, each of the foregoing dollar figures (i.e., per vehicle royalty and maximum aggregate royalties) will be adjusted for inflation annually based on increases (but not decreases) in the U.S. All-Urban Consumer Price Index.

CALSTART

ID: nht95-6.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 10, 1995

FROM: Charles De Saint Martin -- Project Manager, Fairchild Corporation

TO: John Womack -- General Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHARLES DE SAINT MARTIN (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

A telephone conversation with Mrs. Patricia Breslin of D.O.T. prompts to write. She informed me that your office was responsible for providing new product interpretation.

We, at Fairchild are currently looking at establishing a partnership with a French company, regarding the marketing of the following product:

Product description: The product, named "SECURIFLASH", adds security to vehicles by alerting other vehicles of emergency braking situations.

Goal: Differentiate emergency braking from conventional braking by automatically triggering off the warning signals in addition to the standard brake lights.

An electronic device, attached to the engine's block, releases the warning signals at time of extreme deceleration, as if the driver had done it by hand.

The product does not in any way affect or alter the original equipment of the car. It should be considered as an additional warning signals switch which automatically triggers off in case of emergency braking.

This product was developed after different European studies show that 60% of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier.

Waiting for your correspondence.

Attachment

(Brochure Omitted.)

ID: nht95-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment, such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-7.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-7.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Bob Clement -- Member of Congress

TO: The Honorable Richardo Martinez, M.D. -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/14/95 Letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bob Clement (VSA 11316; A43; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

I recently received the attached information from my constituent, Mr. Dale Allen Pommer, regarding the regulations governing a third seat belt in the back seat. According to Mr. Pommer, federal rules prohibit a third seat belt from being installed in his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a response so that I might properly reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jay Hansen of my staff at (202) 225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide. I look forward to hearing from you.

Attachment

Representative Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives 2229 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205-20515-4205

Representative Clement:

I am writing to you regarding my automobile and safety regulations. We recently had a new baby and I want to put a third seat belt in the back of my 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. I keep getting told that no one will do it because of safety laws. This strikes me as absurd! What is more dangerous? A post-factory-installed seat belt or no seat belt at all? Or two kids in one seat belt? My wife's Hyundai Excel which is considerably smaller than my Blazer has three seat belts in the rear. So my tiny foreign-made car is safe for five, but my much larger, American-made Blazer is not. Is that the conclusion?

I would like to know what, if anything you know about the safety laws and whether or not there is anything that can be done in a case like mine. I sure as Hell can't afford a new truck and don't want to get rid of mine anyway. I would also like to be able to put my whole family in it.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dale Allen Pommer Nashville, TN 615/262-9736