ID: nht75-4.1

DATE: 11/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MOTAC, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whether rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.

In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.

In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

September 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

We would appreciate your clarification as to the extent that major repairs and/or modifications may be made to semi-trailers and pull trailers without the inclusion of the FMVSS 121 anti-lock brakes.

We have two items or catagories that we wished resolved and they are brought about thru your letter of 8/28/75, file number N40-30 addressed to Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc., Cottage Grove, Wisconsin. This letter was transmitted to all members of T.T.M.A.

ITEM NO. 1

Assume that a platform trailer had been in a serious accident and possibly rolled over, thereby bending and twisting the main frame members severely. We will also assume that the damage is to such an extent that the main frame members cannot be straightened, which generally can be done.

The following conditions could then prevail for the required repair:

A. Cut the damaged portion off of one or possibly both main frame rails and repair with a new partial section or sections.

B. Replace one main frame rail completely.

C. Replace both main frame rails completely.

In the above hypothesis, the "Bogie", axles, wheels, tires, supports, etc. would all be used. The trailer would maintain the same model and serial number.

In a major repair of this sort will the standard 121 brakes be required? If so, then the old axles would have to be junked and new S-121 axle assemblies with computor/relay valves must be purchased and installed.

ITEM NO. 2

Six years ago, our company manufactured thirty (30) single axle container semi-trailers and thirty (30) tandem axle container semi-trailers, 25 foot long to haul 20 foot containers. The main frame rails, bolsters, supports, etc., are identical on both trailers.

The customer is now contemplating converting the single axle semi-trailers to tandem axle semi-trailers. This will entail relocating the existing front and rear spring hangers, adding a center equalizer hanger and rocker arm assembly, one set of springs, one axle, brake, tire and wheel assembly. The trailer will be reregistered as a tandem axle semi-trailer for state licensing.

In converting a single axle semi-trailer to a tandem axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required? Also, conversely, if a tandem axle semi-trailer should be converted to a single axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required?

MOTAC, INC.

Jack A. Johnson Chief Engineer

ID: nht90-4.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: John M. Marcum -- Chairman and CEO, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to NHTSA Administrator; Also attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591)

TEXT:

Electric Vehicles, S.A. of 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20006, is applying for a temporary exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. The firm is incorporated in Geneva, Switzer land and manufactures both electric minibuses and delivery trucks. EVSA has built its first two 16 passenger electric minibus prototypes (13,700 GVWR). They are currently being tested and evaluated in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Hong Kong. Through this testing program, EVSA plans to improve the performance and establish conformity to FMVSS requirements of our production vehicles. However, meeting all of these standards for our prototype would impair the development and field evaluation of this electri c vehicle. The 16 passenger minibus is powered with a Chloride 55 kw traction motor and carries 128 two volt batteries in four battery packs placed on top of the chassis and in sealed compartments under the passenger seats on either side of the the vehi cle. The batteries are accessible through fiberglass doors that run the length of the vehicle on either side. The minibus is a hybrid vehicle in that it is equipped with an optional 7 kw gasoline powered generator or range enhancer which is in a compar tment at the rear of the bus.

If this exemption is granted it will allow the vehicle to be used in a "free" test and evaluation passenger service operated in Allentown in the downtown shopping area. The bus will operate on a 1.7 mile loop that averages 20 stops per loop and where th e average speed is less than 10 mph. EVSA requests that this exemption be for a period of three months. During this time the minibus would be operated on the downtown loop by the Lehigh and Northhampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) as part of a join t test and evaluation program between EVSA, LANTA, the Pennsylvania Energy Office, Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and others.

The prototype vehicle in Allentown differs in several respects from the FMVSS requirements. The first is that due to the use of thick "show type" fiberglass it is overweight. The vehicle unloaded is approximately 13,200 lbs. This means that when fully loaded to the 16 passenger (17 persons including the driver) capacity it will be about 2,000 lbs. or 15 percent over the GVWR of the chassis.

This vehicle also does not meet fully the requirement for emergency exits. It does not have a roof top emergency exit or the required one exit per three seating positions. However, it does have one side emergency door near the rear on the opposite side from the main entry door which does provide the total emergency exit requirement of 1139 square inches.

EVSA believes this should provide adequate egress in the event of an emergency in this limited operating mode.

The vehicle also fails to meet the standards in other areas including windshield washer, seat belt warning light and so on. These are in the process of being added to the vehicle during the test program. The chassis has passed its brake tests under ful l load at the Bendix proving ground and additional tests of the integrated vehicle are being carried out at the Mack Truck test track in Allentown.

The minibus has already demonstrated the capacity to carry 20 or more persons safely at its first showings in exhibitions in Athens, Greece and Houston, Texas. Moreover the front wheel drive heavy duty rail type chassis is conservatively rated and the m inibus will be driven at very low speeds on flat ground under passenger loads ranging from within the GVWR up to a maximum overload of 15 percent. Consequently, EVSA and its partners in the Allentown project do not believe there is any appreciable risk to the public resulting from the non-conforming aspects of this prototype vehicle. Operating this minibus in the downtown area during this experimental program would allow EVSA and LANTA to acquire valuable data for the designing and fabrication of futu re electric vehicles that would meet all of the applicable standards and would help fulfill the objective of the Alternative Fuels Vehicle Program of UMTA.

ID: nht92-3.22

DATE: 10/08/92

FROM: T. KOUCHI, -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.: PHOTOMETRIC TEST METHOD OF HMSL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO T. KOUCHI (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We Would like to ask you some questions about photometric test method of High-Mounted Stop Lamp (HMSL) using Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

BACKGROUND: HMSL is required to conform to SAE J186a which is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108. We know, however, that SAE J1889 has been published as a technical guide to standard practice for LED lighting devices. So, in making photometric measurement of HMSL incorporating LEDs, we usually follow testing method described in Sec. 3.1.5 (Photometry Test) of that SAE document.

PROBLEMS: When we conduct photometric measurements of HMSL incorporating LEDs according to the test method of SAE J1889 as mentioned above, the lamp must be energized, for the measurement of photometric minimums, "until either internal heat buildup saturation has occurred or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first" as recommended in Sec. 3.1.5.3. However, since it is rather difficult to determine the exact time of internal heat buildup saturation every time when measuring lamps, we make it a rule to conduct measurement 30 minutes after the lamp energization. We think it is reasonable that the lamp should be energized for stabilization beforehand, because the light output of a lamp changes with time at the beginning of operation due to the unique character of LEDs. But, after energization for such a long time as 30 minutes, the light output decreases by approximately 30% of the initial value depending on the type of lamp.

So we must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense.

SOLUTION: To solve the above mentioned problems, and for reasons as will be stated in the following, we consider that the warm-up time of HMSL incorporating LEDs should be 5 minutes for measurement of photometric minimums.

Reasons: 1) The time duration is usually within a minute or 3 minutes at the longest that a driver keeps to step on the brake pedal. We do not have the statistical data about this time duration, but some members of our staff who drive a car everyday gave us similar values.

2) The light output of the lamp does not always stabilize in 5 minutes, but it is not necessary to take a warm-up time above the time duration the lamp is continuously operated in real driving.

3) SAE J575 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" prescribes, in Table 1, operating cycles of individual signal lamps during the warpage test, and it specifies 5 on-5 off operation for a stop lamp. This specification of 5-minute energization deserves attention because it seems to be established taking into consideration actual way of usage of stop lamps.

Based on the above explanation, we would like you to revise FMVSS 108 by adding a new provision, in certain place thereof, specifying that HMSL incorporating LEDs shall be energized for 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minimums. Your view on this matter is highly appreciated.

Furthermore, regarding actual steps of photometric measurement, we ask you to permit the following. We would like to have your comment on this matter also.

STEPS: 1. Measure luminous intensity at H-V axis after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes.

2. After the light output stabilized, measure luminous intensities at all test points including H-V axis.

3. From the results of Steps 1 and 2, calculate the decrease rate of the luminous intensity at H-V axis from the time the lamp was energized for 5 minutes to the time the light output stabilized.

4. Multiply the luminous intensities at test points excluding H-V axis obtained at Step 2 by the reciprocal of the decrease rate calculated at Step 3, to estimate the luminous intensities to be measured at respective test points after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes. Then the individual estimated values are deemed the measured photometric values and they are recorded.

ID: nht90-1.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1990

FROM: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Cal Karl -- Commercial Vehicle Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R. E. Meadows

TEXT:

This letter is in response to the Department of Public Safety memo recently printed in the January MSBOA newsletter.

As a bus body manufacturer we offer "Vandalocks" on both the emergency door(s) and service door of our products.

The service door Vandalock is a key activated handle located on the front of the vehicle. When the service door is closed the safety catch holds the door closed. The door cannot be opened from outside the vehicle. The front Vandalock allows the door t o be opened from outside by the use of a cam which releases the safety catch. Please note - the standard entrance door without a Vandalock cannot be opened from outside if the safety catch is engaged.

This front Vandalock is not connected to the ignition interlock for several reasons:

1. Federal standards only require the emergency doors (as listed in S5.2.3.1.) to be equipped with the interlock.

2. The door is only locked from the outside; not from the inside. Anyone can get out the door from the inside even if the Vandalock is in the locked position.

For this reasoning we feel we comply with Rule 3520.5010 subparagraph 2 for the front door because we are in compliance with FMVSS 217.

The Thomas Vandalock for emergency doors utilizes a "slide bolt" lock located on the inside of the door which is connected to an ignition interlock. The bus may not be started with the door "locked". The door may be locked once the bus is started; howe ver, a continuous buzzer will sound if the door is locked while the bus is running, thereby notifying the driver of a problem. This slide bolt type lock is equipped with a spring which requires a positive force to engage. This feature will not allow th e lock to become engaged by vibration or during rollover.

Thomas Built Buses has been using this type of Vandalock for at least 15 years (if not longer) without any problems. We feel we are in compliance

with the FMVSS 217 for the following reasons:

S5.2.3.2. "The engine starting System of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus."

Our Vandalock has the ignition interlock and locks the door from inside the bus.

For purposes of this requirement "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination."

It has been our interpretation that the words "such as" indicate an example, a key is not required but a "special device" or a combination is not required, but "special information."

As I have interpreted this article in the newsletter, the State of Minnesota will require buses with Vandalocks to only be locked from the outside and/or inside with a key or combination. At this time I am not aware of a Vandalock on emergency doors whi ch meets these requirements.

Vandalocks, as you are aware, are not necessary for the safe operation of school buses. They are provided at the customer's request to deter vandalism when the vehicles are parked.

There probably are numerous school buses in Minnesota which are equipped with Vandalocks which do not meet the 7/1/89 regulations which are now going to be required to be removed at the customer's expense.

We at Thomas Built Buses would like for you to reconsider the 7/1/89 regulation to allow our present Vandalock system to be acceptable.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: nht88-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/88

FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 L.T. MITCHELL FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

We and some of our customers have had a disagreement with a state's Motor Vehicle Code concerning the installation of a warning light system on activity buses. Attached is a copy of Sections 46.1-1(37) and 46.1-286.1. These are the State definitions of "School Bus" and a limitation for school bus equipment, respectively.

The limitation is that "Only school buses...may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices". These "warning devices" include the warning light system. Thus a bus that is not painted yellow does not need to have warning lights. This group of "not painted yellow" buses includes school activity buses.

The Federal "Schoolbus" definition includes the phrase "...or events related to such schools". Thus, as we understand it, school activity buses are included in the D.O.T. definition of a school bus.

FMVSS #108 (49 CFR Part 571.108) states in S4.1.4, "Each school bus shall be equipped with a system of either: (a) Four red signal lamps...(b) Four red signal lamps...and four amber signal lamps..."

QUESTION: Does a final stage manufacturer of school buses have to install warning lights on a school activity bus?

We have up to this time installed a four light warning system on activity buses. This has placed our product at a distinct price disadvantage because some competitors are not always installing a warning light system on school activity buses. In addition , our customers are having to remove the warning lights from activity

buses because they are not painted yellow, and thus, they do not meet the Motor Vehicle Code.

We request an interpretation of FMVSS #108 in these matters. Thank you for a quick and timely response.

Sincerely.

Enclosure MOTOR VEHICLE CODE

(37) "School bus". -- Any motor vehicle, other than a station wagon, automobile, truck, or commercial bus, which is: (i) designed and used primarily for the transportation of pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools, or used for the tra nsportation of the mentally or physically handicapped to and from a sheltered workshop; and (ii) painted yellow and bears the words "School Bus" in black letters of a specified size on front and rear; and (iii) is equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. School buses, manufactured prior to July 1, 1974, may continue to have the words "Stop, State Law" in black letters of specified size on front and rear.

@ 46.1-169.1. Operation of yellow motor vehicles of certain seating capacity on State highways prohibited; exceptions; penalty. -- It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle licensed in[Illegible words] having a seating capacity of more than fifteen p ersons to be operated on the highways of this State if it be yellow in color, unless such motor vehicle is used in transporting students who attend public, private or parochial schools, or for the purposes specified in @ 46.1-287.1 and meets the requirem ents for motor vehicles used in the transportation of pupils in the public schools. This section shall not apply to motor vehicles which transport passengers as well as school children for hire in the cities of[Illegible Words] Violators of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1966, c. 586; 1968, c. 756; 1970, c. 521.)

@ 46.1-286.1. Paint and lettering on school bus. -- All motor vehicles, except commercial buses, station wagons, automobiles or trucks, transporting pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools shall be painted yellow with the words "Schoo l Bus, Stop, State Law" on the front and rear in letters at least six inches high, except that the words "School Bus" on the front may be in letters at least four inches high if space is limited, or with only the words "School Bus" on front and rear in l etters at least eight inches high, and shall be equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. Only school buses, as defined in @ 46.1-1 (37), may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices. A vehicle which merely transports pupils, residents at a school, from one point to another without intermittent stops for the purpose of picking up or discharging pupils, need not comply with the requirements of this section. (1968. c. 653; 1974, c. 455. )

ID: 1983-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc. -- H. Nakaya, Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1983, asking whether the headlamp bezel is considered a "styling ornament or other feature" for purposes of paragraph 5.2 of SAE J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, Aug 79 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

The referenced SAE paragraph prohibits styling ornaments or other features in front of the lens when the headlamp is in use. The intent of this paragraph is to guarantee optimum light output from the headlamp by insuring that no part of the vehicle interferes with the light pattern. If a headlamp bezel is so large that it could interfere with the design light patterns of the lamp, we would consider it a "styling ornament or other feature" within the meaning of paragraph 5.2.

An oversize bezel interfering with light output would also be prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3. of Standard No. 108 which prohibits installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment which the standard requires.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel May 24, 1983

Our Ref. No.: SDL3-016

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Per a recent phone conversation from a member of my staff to Mr. Taylor Vinson, we request a clarification concerning FMVSS108: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Our question is: Is the headlamp bezel included in "... any styling ornament or other feature..." which is explained in SAE J530 5.2.

Of course, the performance of the headlamp satisfies all requirements of FMVSS108.

We are looking forward to receiving your response as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

ID: NYS_preemption-8263

Ms. Ida L. Traschen, Esq.
Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228




Dear Ms. Traschen:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether New York State "must" amend its definition of low speed vehicle (LSV) to conform to the recent amendment to the Federal definition of LSV. Your question is addressed below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles, to ensure that LSVs are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. As established in an August 17, 2005 final rule, LSV is defined as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds), whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 32 kilometers per hour (km/h) (20 miles per hour (mph)) but less than 40 km/h (25 mph) (70 FR 48313).

In your letter, you stated that the definition of LSV under New York State Vehicle Traffic and Safety Law 121-f does not include a gross vehicle weight rating limit. You then asked if New York State must amend its definition of LSV to conform to the recently amended Federal definition of LSV.

While a State is not required to amend its definition of LSV, maintaining a different definition than the Federal definition could have implications with respect to preemption of State laws.

Under Federal law, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of "low-speed vehicle" must be manufactured to conform to FMVSS No. 500. Similarly, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or "truck," must be manufactured to meet the FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, regardless of how the vehicle may be classified under State law.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on how a vehicle is classified, i.e. , its vehicle type. If a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) the State classification results in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance, the State safety standard would be preempted.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.1/4/06

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: INS_SUV

Mr. Mark D. Wallace
Department of Justice
U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Room 6214
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Dear Mr. Wallace:

This is in response to your request for a waiver to purchase motor vehicles that, because of their design for severe off-road use, do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant this type of waiver. However, as explained below, the vehicles you wish to purchase would not be subject to the FMVSS.

By way of background, under 49 U.S.C. 30101(1) this agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles." A motor vehicle is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways[.]" 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). In limited circumstances, we have determined that vehicles designed and sold exclusively for off-road use were not "motor vehicles" and thus, not regulated under the FMVSS.[1] If the vehicles you wish to purchase were intended only for off-road use and therefore not "motor vehicles," they would not be subject to our standards. Furthermore, under 49 CFR 571.7(b), the FMVSS do not apply to vehicles "manufactured for, and sold directly to the Armed Services of the United States in conformity with contractual specification."

In your letter you state that current commercial, "off-the-shelf" sport utility vehicles are unable to meet the demands of operating in the severe terrain as required by the expanding mission of the Border Patrol. In response to this problem, you state that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) developed a "Terrain-Based Off-Road Vehicle Program," through which the INS is working with different vehicle manufacturers to produce off-road vehicles that are designed to withstand the off-road driving conditions of deserts and mountain passes, based on existing commercial vehicles (e.g. the Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD). You anticipate that these vehicles would be operated by the Border Patrol on public roadways less than ten percent of their driving time.

Your request cites a previous letter from our agency in which we determined that through border enforcement, the Border Patrol functions similar to a component of the Armed Forces.[2] In that letter, the Hummer vehicles bought by the Border Patrol were used in a national security role by protecting "the countrys borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations." The Hummer vehicles were capable of being equipped with military equipment and would carry firearms. As such, the Hummer vehicles were not subject to the FMVSS.

Our agency regards the border enforcement function of the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. Because of the unique mission and method of operation by the Border Control, I have determined that the vehicles in question fall with in the military vehicle exemption and need not be certified as compliant with all applicable FMVSS. In this instance, the vehicles you wish to purchase would be built according to specifications provided by the Border Patrol. The vehicles would be sold directly to the Border Patrol. The vehicles would be used in a capacity similar to that of the exempted Hummer vehicles previously purchased by the Border Patrol and in a capacity similar to that of the Armed Forces. We take no position on whether these vehicles, if purchased by someone other than INS, would be considered motor vehicles with in the context of 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

I hope this addresses your concern.If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/17/03