ID: aiam5409

"Dear Mr. Shuff: This responds to your letter asking whether tires an wheel rims used with your 'park model travel trailers' are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. As explained below, the answer is no, because your travel trailers are not motor vehicles. Your letter provided the following information about your 'trailers.' The trailers are intended for recreational use, rather than for year round living. Each unit is a maximum of 400 sq. ft., and may be as wide as 12 feet. You state that after your trailers are constructed, they 'will be towed to their campsite and set up,' where they may be used for 'winter camping in the year round parks.' Once your trailers are set up, you would reuse the tires and rims. By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. authorizes NHTSA to regulate new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires and rims. Standard No. 120, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the statute. The term 'motor vehicle' is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as: 'motor vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. We have determined that your 'trailers' are not motor vehicles based on two examinations. First, while the characteristics of your trailers are not entirely clear in your letter (our repeated attempts to reach you by telephone have been unsuccessful), it appears that your trailers could be considered 'mobile homes.' Mobile homes are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and are not 'motor vehicles' subject to regulation by NHTSA. Accordingly, tire and rim selection for mobile homes is not subject to Standard No. 120 or any other NHTSA regulation. For information about mobile homes, you can contact the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20410. Second, even if your 'trailer' is not a mobile home, it does not meet the Safety Act definition of a 'motor vehicle.' We have interpreted the definition as follows. Vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use of the public roads is incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. On the other hand, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Based on your description, it appears that, analogous to mobile construction equipment, the on-road use of your travel trailers appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured. Therefore, your trailers are not subject to Standard No. 120's requirements for tire selection and rims. Please note that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5222

"Dear Mr. Dinh: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time. If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows. The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel. The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance' with any FMVSS. In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5220

"Dear Mr. Dinh: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time. If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows. The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel. The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance' with any FMVSS. In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5240

"Dear Mr. Peer: This responds to your letter in which you reques 'Federal approval and certification' for the 'TWIP,' the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards. Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide 'federal approval and certification.' As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification. Because your vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is: Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980 You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200 I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht80-4.26

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 30, 1980, asking questions with respect to the term "overall vehicle width" contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have first asked whether door handles are a part of the vehicle to be included in the definition. The answer is that they need not be included. The definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) excludes outside rearview mirrors and other equipment items in computing "overall vehicle width." Although the definition does not list door handles among the equipment to be excluded in determining the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other equipment items listed and may be deemed included.

Your second question is whether vehicles, whose tolerances are such that they are less than 80 inches in overall width, must nevertheless be equipped with clearance and identification lamps if the basic vehicle design is such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" is 80 inches or greater. The answer is yes. If the engineering drawings, etc. of the basic vehicle design posit an overall vehicle width of 80 inches or more, all vehicles manufactured on the basis of that specification must be equipped with clearance and identification lamps even if an occasional vehicle is produced whose overall width may be slightly less than 80 inches due to the tolerances involved.

Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

October 30, 1980

The Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt

Subject: FMVSS108 Interpretation

File: S203.108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of IVECO, (Industrial Vehicles Company) B.V. of Amsterdam, Holland. As such we act as importers into the United States of two lines of trucks. One of these lines is the new IVECO Z Range built in Brescia, Italy. It is with regard to this vehicle that we have some questions concerning FMVSS108 and request an offical interpretation. In particular, FMVSS108 makes a basic division of vehicle lighting requirements by "overall vehicle width" defined in 40 CFR, Part 571.3, Definitions. The current definition to the best of our knowledge is: "Overall vehicle width means the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight ahead position."

With regard to this definition:

1) Are door handles to be considered as a part of the vehicle to be included in the "overall vehicle width" or is the intent of the definition to take into account only the major body structure as would seem to be indicated by the list of exceptions?

2) If a vehicle were designed such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" was above 80 inches, but the tolerance was such that specific vehicles might in reality be manufactured below 80 inches.

a) Do such vehicles, which physically measure under 80 inches, require the marker/identification lamps per greater than 80" width requirements or should they more properly meet the lighting requirements for vehicles under 80"?

In affect, what is the meaning of "nominal design width" and how does it relate to compliance of vehicles which physically meet one criteria while technically appear to meet another.

These questions are of great concern to us, therefore we would appreciate as prompt an interpretive reply as possible. If clarification or additional information is required, please do not hesitate to call me at the above address and phone number. If a meeting is deemed necessary, I am likewise available. Thank you for your assistance.

Carl G. F. Pedersen

cc: N. GOODWIN

ID: nht74-2.23

DATE: 09/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B Grefory; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, to establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market.

The standard presently requires air reservoir volumes to be a multiple of the vehicle's brake chamber volumes. Midland-Ross also requested that S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be amended to require that a reservoir withstand hydrostatic pressure five times greater than stated on its label without rupture, or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding one percent. The standard presently requires that an air reservoir withstand internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the vehicle compressor cutout pressure or 500 pounds, whichever is greater. The pecition also requests modifications of the trailer test rig, which were made in a recent amendment of the standard (39 FR 17563, May 17, 1974).

You suggested that our requirement for air reservoir volume as a multiple of brake chamber volume will encourage installation of smaller equipment and thereby create a safety problem. We cannot agree, in view of the standard's stopping distance requirements which in effect mandate the installation of high performance components. Indications to date are that manufacturers have in fact not reduced brake chamber volumes. A certain degree of chamber stroke standardization may occur, which the NHTSA views as favorable. For these reasons your request is denied.

With regard to the air reservoir pressure requirements of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, you argued that a reservoir manufacturer is unable to establish the required strength of his product because he cannot control the compressor cutout pressure of the vehicle on which the reservoir is installed. It should be understood that the standard is not an equipment standard with which Midland-Ross must comply, but a vehicle standard with which the vehicle manufacturer must comply. We have determined that the reservoir should be designed to manage the pressures to which it might be exposed on the vehicle on which it is installed. The vehicle manufacturer is able to establish a compressor cutout pressure (on powered vehicles, and, based on that value, order the appropriate reservoir to meet the requirement. It is evident that commercial considerations will standard compressor cutout pressures on reasonable range of available reservoir strengths. Midland-Ross as a manufacturer of reservoirs is free to establish a range of reservoir strenghts, and label the reservoirs as described in your petition. For the reasons cited, however, your petition to mandate this is denied.

We agree the requirement that a reservoir "withstand" a certain pressure can be further specified, and we are considering a proposal to do this in the future.

At this time the NHTSA has adopted the SAE Standard No. J10a, which specifies that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding one percent.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 121 DOCKET 73-13 NOTICE #3

BY POWER CONTROLS DIVISION MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION

M. J. Denholm Director of Engineering

February 8, 1974

Midland-Ross regrets to find that several of the proposals issued under Notice 1 of Docket 73-13 have not been incorporated in the rule issued under Notice 3 of the Docket.

The purpose of this petition is to request reconsideration of outstanding petitions and comments not yet resolved or acted upon from previous notices. In addition, we wish to offer additional information to supplement our comments on Docket 70-16 and 17, Notice 3, and the petition for reconsideration of Docket 70-17, Notice 4.

Taking the sections as they appear in FMVSS 121 as amended by Docket 73-13, Notice 3, we ask for your consideration of the following:

S5.1.2.1

S5.2.1.2

On March 23, 1972, we petitioned for consideration of this section of Docket 70-16 and 70-17, Notice 3.

Quote: "The combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms" requires definition in that volume can be measured in more than one way resulting in significant variation in result. For example: Displacement determined by pressurizing a chamber hydrostatically to 5 psig would result in approximately 10% less volume as compared to that indicated when the same chamber is pressurized to 100 psig hydrostatically. The hydrostatic pressure would be applied using an incompressable fluid; the volume of fluid displaced being the measure of the chamber volume. We recommend the standard be revised to read as follows:

'S5.1.2.1 . . .the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms when measured with 5 psig applied to the chamber.' This will eliminate the possibility of a dual standard when determining compliance."

On August 14, 1973, we petitioned again for reconsideration of this section of Docket 70-17, Notice 4; and again on July 11, 1973, against Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Quote: "The requirement under both these sections is restrictive and not necessarily in the public interest. For example, Midland-Ross Type 30 service chambers provide 2.75 inch stroke where units of other manufacturers are as low as 2.5 inch. The long stroke provides a desirable margin for poor brake adjustment. We believe this advantage will render our product non-competitive. To become competitive a reduction in stroke, with the attendant reduction in reservoir capacity requirement will be necessary. We feel, in light of recent experience with designs to meet FMVSS, 121, Notice 4, that this is arbitrary and an unnecessarily expensive retrograde step, caused by the wording of this section. In addition, chamber displacement varies dependent upon the applied pressure.

"This is caused by ballooning of diaphragms as pressure is increased. It should be noted that a three or four axle rigid truck would require significantly larger reservoirs under this rule than would a two-axle tractor designed to tow two or three trailers. Taking into account these three factors, it is recommended that S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 be reworded as follows:

'S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least the value obtained by the following product: Buses, and tractors and trailers designed to tow air-braked vehicles:

(12) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

Trucks not designed to tow other air-braked vehicles: (8) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

The combined volume of all service brake chambers is that volume obtained at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms with 100 psi hydrostatic pressure applied to the chambers with the brakes adjusted as specified by the vehicle manufacturer for new, unburnished brakes.

'S5.2.1.2 The total service reservoir volume shall be at least the value obtained by the following product: (8) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

The combined volume of all service brake chambers is that volume obtained at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms with 100 psi hydrostatic pressure applied to the chambers with the brakes adjusted as specified by the vehicle manufacturer for new, unburnished brakes."

No action has resulted from any of these petitions. We feel both arguments are still valid. We would like to add additional argument to that furnished on August 14, 1973, as follows:

An optional method of determining reservoir volume would consist of using an established minimum working volume for each standard size of service chamber. The minimum working volume would then be used to compute the reservoir requirement in the manner stated in the standard. Using this approach, the need for the changes recommended on March 23, 1972, would be eliminated also. We therefore recommend the S5.1.2.1 be reworded as follows: S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be determined by adding the volumes specified in Table V, Column 1 for each air-operated service brake actuator.

S.5.2.1.2 shall read:

S5.2.1.2 Total service reservoir volume shall be determined by adding the volumes specified in Table V, Column 2 for each air operated service brake actuator.

TABLE V Reservoir Volume Required Per Actuator * Column 1 * Column 2 Actuator Trucks-Buses Trailers Type 9 Diaphragm 240 cubic inches 160 cubic inches Type 12 Diaphragm 300 cubic inches 200 cubic inches Type 16 Diaphragm 528 cubic inches 352 cubic inches Type 20 Diaphragm 612 cubic inches 408 cubic inches Type 24 Diaphragm 732 cubic inches 488 cubic inches Type 30 Diaphragm 1056 cubic inches 704 cubic inches Type 36 Diaphragm 1464 cubic inches 976 cubic inches

*Piston or Rolling 12 x volume at max. 8 x volume at max.

Diaphragm working stroke working stroke

The above revisions to S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 are requested due to the variation in design of diaphragm type service brake chambers. These chambers are of generally similar construction, but because of manufacturing tolerances and slight differences in stroke length, their maximum volumes are different by a few percentage points. The current reservoir volume requirement based on maximum displacement encourages the use of small volume chambers (to reduce required reservoir volumes). In use, however, these small volume chambers provide less reserve than larger displacement units. This is true because the larger displacement units generally have slightly longer operating strokes. This additional stroke is a safety advantage in event that brake drums expand from heat buildup or shoes are allowed to wear without brake readjustment.

The chamber volume differences caused by variations in maximum stroke length are not significant to a vehicle in normal operation. This is because either chamber design would require the same amount of air to operate a properly adjusted brake; either unit when stroked to the same distance (any value short of maximum stroke; would displace nearly the same volume of air. Chamber volume requirements per brake application would be the same for either chamber design unless the stroke exceeded the maximum stroke length of the short stroke chamber. In that case, (abnormal situation) the long stroke chamber would require more air than a short stroke unit but would produce brake torque to stop the vehicle. The short stroke unit would be stopped internally without producing brake torque.

If S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 are not revised, market pressure will force redesign of long stroke chambers to limit stroke (and maximum volume). This could be carried to an extreme whereby the redesigned chambers would have even shorter strokes than current chambers. This type unit would then have economic advantages that would encourage their use; but they would actually be inferior to current chambers from a safety point of view.

The chamber volumes proposed in Table V were arrived at by applying the current requirement of 12 times chamber volume at maximum stroke (eight times for trailers) to the maximum volume of the truck industry's most common air brake chamber. These values do not represent a change in the spirit of the law, only in its detail. The original method of determining reservoir volume would be retained for piston actuators or other devices whose stroke and displacement have not become standardized in the industry.

S5.1.2.2

S5.2.1.3

On March 23, 1972, we petitioned for reconsideration of both of these sections of Docket 70-16 and 70-17, Notice 3.

Quote: "The requirement that the reservoirs under both of these sections should 'withstand' an internal hydrostatic pressure is nondefinitive and open to interpretation. In addition, manufacturers of air brake reservoirs are not necessarily in a position to determine what the cutout pressure of the compressor will be for a particular reservoir application prior to design and development of the reservoir as required under Paragraph S5.1.2.2. In addition, there is a significant inconsistency between the requirements for reservoir strength on a truck or bus and those for reservoirs used on a trailer as both reservoirs on a combination vehicle would be pressurized by the same compressor to the same pressure levels. It would appear reasonable, in the interest of safety, to adopt a common standard. It would also appear to be advisable to use a standard which is both proven and perfectly acceptable based on long periods of experience. It is therefore recommended that Paragraphs S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be revised as follows:

'Each reservoir shall be capable of accepting a hydrostatic pressure of not less than five times the reservoir rated working pressure for a minimum of one minute. When subjected to this pressure for this time period there shall be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding 1%. The reservoirs meeting this requirement must be permanently identified for rated working pressure."

On August 14, 1973, we again petitioned for reconsideration of these sections of Docket 70-17, Notice 3. Comments were also made on Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Quote: "The requirement that the reservoirs under both of these sections should withstand an internal hydrostatic pressure is nondefinitive and open to interpretation. In addition manufacturers of air brake reservoirs are not necessarily in a position to determine what the cutout pressure of the compressor will be for a particular reservoir application prior to design and development of the reservoir as required under Paragraph S5.1.2.2. In addition, there is a significant inconsistency between the requirements for reservoir strength on a truck or bus and those for reservoirs used on a trailer. Both reservoirs on a combination vehicle would be pressurized by the same compressor to essentially the same pressure levels. It would appear reasonable, in the interest of safety, to adopt a common standard. It would also appear to be advisable to use a standard which is both proven and perfectly acceptable based on long periods of experience. It is therefore recommended that Paragraphs S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be revised as follows:

'Each reservoir shall be capable of accepting a hydrostatic pressure of not less than five times the reservoir rated working pressure for a minimum of one minute. When subjected to this pressure for this time period, there shall be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding 1%. The reservoirs meeting this requirement must be permanently identified for rated working pressure.'

Note: This recommendation reflects the current SAE Standard Practice (SAE J10b) in regard to reservoir certification and therefore should provide clarification without creating unnecessary hardships."

An additional point which was not specifically made in the two petitions quoted from relates to manufacturing practice and product application.

As a major reservoir manufacturer, Midland-Ross produces all reservoirs for air-braked vehicles in one of three diameters. Each diameter is engineered from differing material thicknesses to withstand a predetermined working pressure. Usually this is 150 psi. When reservoirs are supplied to the industry we have no knowledge of the compressor cutout pressure. The compressor cutout pressure is usually adjustable in service. A situation over which the reservoir manufacturer has no control. By establishing a maximum rated working pressure for the reservoir to be marked on the unit, the user then has direct knowledge of the limit to which the compressor cutout pressure can be safely adjusted. We feel that adopting this method would result in better understanding on the part of the user as this has been the standard used historically. It would eliminate the need to re-educate operators and provide a sounder basis for economic reliable manufacture and application of air brake reservoirs.

S5.3.3

S5.3.4

On March 23, 1972 we pointed out in our petition for reconsideration the inadequacies of the test standard shown in Docket 70-16 and 70-16, Notice 3, Figure 1. Partial response to this petition was exhibited in Docket 73-13, Notice 1, S6.1.12.

Docket 73-13, Notice 3, essentially returns to 70-17, Notice 3 level, thus effectively ignoring our original petition and also our comments on Docket 73-13, Notice 1, submitted to the Administration on July 11, 1973.

We ask for consideration of our updated proposal as follows:

S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. With an initial service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall reach 60 psi in not more than 0.25 second measured from the first movement of the service brake control. A vehicle designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of meeting the above actuation time requirement with a 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the control line coupler. A trailer shall meet the above requirement with its brake system connected to a trailer timing test rig as shown in Fig. 1 which meets the requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2.

S5.3.3.1 The following should be added:

"The trailer test rig shown in Fig. 1 shall be constructed such that the pressure in a 50 cubic inch test volume connected to the control coupling is raised from zero to 60 psi in .063 second minimum when tested on the test rig. Time shall be measured from the first mechanical movement of the device controlling air flow to the control coupling."

S5.3.3.2 The following should be added:

"The trailer test rig shown in Figure 1 shall be constructed such that the pressure in a 50 cubic inch test volume connected to the control coupling is exhausted from 95 to 5 psi in .220 second minimum when tested on the test rig. Time shall be measured from the first mechanical movement of the device controlling air flow from the control coupling.

Figure 1 should be revised as shown:

(Graphics omitted)

S5.3.4 Brake release time. With an initial brake chamber air pressure of 95 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall fall to 5 psi in not more than 0.50 second measured from the first movement of the service brake control. A vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of meeting the above release time requirement with a 50-cubic inch test reservoir connected to the control line coupling. A trailer shall meet the above release time requirement with its brake system connected to the test rig shown in Fig. 1 and which meets the requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2.

The above changes to Section S5.3.3 and Figure 1, and additions to S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2 are recommended in an effort to more completely define the TRAILER TEST RIG. Until this rig is defined, uniform timing will not exist on trailers built to FMVSS 121. The original Figure 1 was designed to duplicate a tractor. It did this but as a test instrument it is inadequately defined. The air delivery performance of this device (as well as the tractors it was modeled from) will vary significantly. This is unacceptable when proof of vehicle compliance to the standard depends upon tests made with this unit. The proposed Figure 1 is a black box with narrowly defined performance characteristics. Devices built to this requirement will undoubtedly exhibit performance variations when tested against one another, but their level of consistency will far exceed that obtained by a unit in the standard which is only partly defined.

ID: nht94-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determinatio n. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to b uyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standar ds."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answer ed is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and u nderground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum sp eed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the tru cks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of conve rting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. f or modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standar ds, but is intended solely for export.

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

ID: nht94-6.22

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

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

ID: 9287

Judith Jurin Semo, Esq.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044-0407

Dear Ms. Semo:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... [S]ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR 591.5, the importer would file a declaration under 591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA102(3)#591 d:4/19/94

ID: nht95-3.84

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 p roject 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 c oncept 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 defini ng 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 vehicl e 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 dep loyment 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 servic es.

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 syst ems 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 equippe d 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 CALST ART. 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 prescri bed 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 fund s (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 Ca lifornia 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 manufacture d 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 demons trated 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 exten t 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 shuttle s 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, Sameapproximate: 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: SamePERFORMANCE 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 P IVCO 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 Safe ty 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 proprie tary 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 whic h 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 payment s 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 maxim um 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