ID: nht95-3.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/28/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN COUCH (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Council:

Please find enclosed preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp. We are requesting that you please critique this drawing and respond with your approval, or concerns.

The lamp identified as the front marker lamp will meet all FMVSS photometry requirements, and in our opinion is placed as far forward as practicable on this vehicle. The lamp identified as supplementary will not meet the 45 degrees rearward photometry r equirement due to the shape of the vehicle.

Please accept our advance thank you for your input and we look forward to receiving your response.

(Drawing Omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Eric D. Swanger, PE -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Eric D. Swanger (A43; Std. 131)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Research is performed at Specialty Manufacturing on a continual basis to investigate different means of improving upon the safety of school bus equipment. Recently, an inquiry has been made to Specialty concerning the usage of light-emitting diodes (LED 's) on stop arms. Apparently one state feels the usage of LED's to spell out the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade would increase the visibility of the sign in certain weather conditions.

After the engineering department of Specialty Manufacturing manufactured a prototype unit and tested the unit, several questions were raised which we feel need clarification from NHTSA in reference to FMVSS 131. The first being the basic viewing angles of LED's. While LED's have a quicker "on" and "off" time than incandescent bulbs, the overall viewing angle of an LED is extremely limited. Depending upon the placement of the LED's in the stop arm blade, the word "STOP" can vary from being noticeable to being a scattered pattern of lights. Exact placement of the LED's will depend upon the consistency of the manufacturing process. With incandescent lights, the light is very noticeable from all angles and manufacturing consistencies are not at all a concern.

The second issue is the legibility of the LED "STOP" at any given distance. Opinions of many casual onlookers asked to critique the LED sign when lit, seem to indicate that the letters are not large enough nor spaced far enough apart to be discernible at larger distances. Since the size of the letters is clearly defined by FMVSS 131, it appears that standard may have to be revised in order to ensure that "STOP" is legible at greater distances.

P2

The third issue is that of safety equipment consistency. Currently, all stop arms must have the word "STOP" displayed on the stop sign itself. The red lights are optional. The addition of another optional method of lighting may lead to confusion and s ubsequent passing violations due to visiting drivers being unfamiliar with state or county practices of school bus identification.

The development of an LED stop arm appears to our company to be quite expensive at the out set, and we are definitely concerned with the viewing angle, legibility from certain distances, and that consistences provided by FMVSS 131 could be in jeopardy.

I'm asking if you would please give us your interpretation of FMVSS 131 and the use of LED lights outlining the word "STOP." Specialty Manufacturing would be available to help in any standard research, manufacturer input, etc., as we have done in the pas t.

If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-800-951-7867.

ID: nht95-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Randall Townley -- Statewide Coordinator, The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Randall Townley (A44; Std. 207; Std. 222)

TEXT: I have had a question brought to my attention in reference to bench seats being installed in a van side-facing. I am aware some vehicles such as ambulances and pickup trucks are still being manufactured with bench mounted seats. I realize you have no d ata which would support side-mounted seats as being unsafe to the passengers in a vehicle.

Please give me your written opinion in reference to the above. Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

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

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

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

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

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

Enclosure

8/9/95

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Tires Manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

ID: nht95-3.84

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

ID: nht95-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 10, 1995

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiting for your correspondence.

Attachment

(Brochure Omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht95-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

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

TO: Thomas A. Placey, Esq. -- Senior Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, Cumberland County; One Courthouse Square

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/21/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS A. PLACEY TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Placey:

This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. You present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered th e VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return.

You write "The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations."

We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For a n overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety stand ards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statues under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle.

There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if t he conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165.

We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal And Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp system containing fog lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are planning to develop headlamp systems that produce high beam, low beam and fog lamp beam. The fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be l it simultaniously. Please refer to the attached drawing for the possible operating conditions.

The FMVSS No. 108 specifies no requirement for fog lamp, except that the lamp shall not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. (S5.1.3) And we believe such a combination we are planning will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

We would like to ask you to give your advice whether such a combination of fog lamp and high beam can be accepted under the FMVSS No. 108.

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr.

Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.