ID: 20093.drn

Mr. Dean Liebegott
519 East Hudson Avenue
Altoona, PA 16602

Dear Mr. Liebegott:

This responds to your letter regarding use of city mass transit buses as school buses in Altoona. I apologize for the delay in responding. You are concerned about how school children could escape from a mass transit bus in the event of a crash, and note that transit buses do not have safety features such as the seats, bright yellow color, and lighting systems of school buses. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends that school buses (meeting our school bus safety standards) be used when school children are transported to or from school or for school activities, State law determines how the children are to be transported.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3). Our school bus definition excludes new buses designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. This means that a dealer selling a new bus to a transit authority is not required to sell a school bus if the bus is a transit bus used on regular common-carrier routes.

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not have the authority to prohibit transportation providers from using transit buses to transport school children. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. We believe, however, that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and we strongly recommend the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of school buses. I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

If you have any further questions about our school bus program, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

cc: Ms. Nuria Fernandez
Acting Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
400 Seventh St., SW Rm. 9328
Washington, DC 20590
cc: Mr. Bradley L. Mallory
Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Forum Place
555 Walnut Place
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/18/99

ID: nht88-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICL E ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: For SIPING mounted passenger car tires & light duty truck tires

Our model SP Saf-Tee siper is designed specifically for passenger and light duty tires which are mounted on wheels. The machine comes equipped with 12 blades along with the 4 lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/32", a wrench for changing the lead screws and a file for sharpening the blades. The machine also comes standard with the Universal Passenger Adapter that will accommodate any wheels that have an opening of 1.75" up to 5 1/2" center hole. This machine has recently been redesigned and the lifting height of the tire has been lowered. It is fast, easy to operate and takes less than 3 minutes to mount, sipe and dismount the tire. The machine requires very little room and operates with 110 power and air.

This machine is an excellent profit builder for a tire operation or anyone who services automobiles and light duty vehicles. With the advent of high performance tires siping is becoming increasingly popular as a way to offer these tires traction and sta bility on wet and slippery surfaces, in addition to extending the tire life.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . entire siping process takes less than three minutes.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" that strengthen tread components to reduce chunking.

* 90 degrees angle cut across tire gives most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired braking vector.

* Sipes remain sharp and gripping -- can be accomplished only by siping after tire is manufactured.

* Profitable. You get repeat business from satisfied customers. You give them increased safety, reduced operating costs and better tire performance.

SPECIFICATIONS: Height 38"

Width 27"

Side Width 34"

Weight 200lbs.

Motor 1 HP, 110 (standard)

The concept of siping was first patented in the 1920s by John Sipe, who made a series of small cuts in his shoes to give him better traction. The idea is not new, but modern technology has developed siping machines to a high level of sophistication. Siping cannot be duplicated during manufacturing because it leaves a small void of rubber between the sipes. After a short period of time it becomes round and ineffective. Saf-Tee sipes cut into the tire, remove no rubber and the edges remain sharp an d gripping.

Saf-Tee siping machines cut slits at a 90 degrees angle across the tire tread, from 5/32" to 11/32" deep. These slits create thousands of sharp, gripping edges to provide extra traction, safer braking and actually extend the life of the tire as a res ult of dissipation of heat on highway travel. Siping across the tire gives the most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired braking vector.

RUNNING

Under normal road conditions: The ribs flex, responding to bumps and pits in the road, reducing shock to carcass and sidewalls. The tire runs cooler. Under wet, icy snow conditions: The ribs flex, the sharp, exposed edges cut through the hazard squeege eing the water out of the way.

ACCELERATION

Positive traction starts and acceleration in all weather conditions . . . spin on snow and ice is drastically reduced: The ribs separate and expose the sharp squeegee edges to cut to the road surface and channel the hazard out of the way. And . . . sipin g reduces tread wear, extending tire life.

BRAKING

Straight line braking: Without jacknifing, fishtailing or skids. The ribs separate, squeegeeing the hazard or road film away, giving the tire a sure-footed grip on the road surface. Siped tires greatly reduce heat buildup in braking and reduces tire we ar. Siped tires greatly reduce the distance needed to stop.

TESTS

Tests conducted by the National Safety Council on the performance of siped vs. unsiped tires on ice resulted in a 64% increase in breakaway traction and an increase of 28% spinning traction. In stopping distance tests, the reduction was from 200 feet to 155.6 feet -- a 22% improvement.

Major airline engineers tested the use of siping on ground equipment vehicles at O'Hare Field. They recorded a 25.72% increase in drawbar pull on a wet ramp flooded with glycol from deicer. They also show a 33.96% increase in braking under the same conditions. Tests were made before and after siping. As a result of these tests, they have saved thousands of dollars by reducing the need for chains on all vehicles.

The winning car in the Uniroyal One Lap of America auto rally was equipped with siped B. F. Goodrich tires. The 8,800 mile, eight-day endurance race began in Detroit, traveled through 28 states, and ended back at Detroit. Even though the driver enco untered near-blizzard conditions with snow and ice in the mountains, he had no trouble with traction. After the rally the siped tires were just like new.

Saf-Tee sipers employ a circular knife to make slits around the circumference of the tire. This causes the bottom of the sipe to form a scallop pattern, providing a varied depth and strength tie between adjoining sipes. Unlike the uniform depth cut of other siping processes, these scalloped "tie bars" reinforce tread components.

WHAT THEY SAID:

"At the present time we operate three retail stores all dealing in passenger and light duty vehicles. We have a siping machine in each of these stores and in the last twelve months our income has been $ 28,000 from siping."

-- Earl Springer, VP

Roemers Tire Centers, Missoula, MT

"On three sets of our logging tires siped at 11/32 deep the results were 40% less useage of chains, less abrasive damage to tread area and 7%-10% more mileage."

-- Larry Gifford, Service Rep.

Yokohama Tire Corporation

"Increased safety and reduced operating cost don't always go together but with Saf-Tee siped tires, they do. There is no way that I would go back to running without them."

-- Bob Beach

Beach Bus Service, Missoula, MT

"We experienced severe handling problems on snow and ice with police vehicles. In an effort to improve this performance we siped tires on several of these vehicles and ran tests. We found we could negotiate 90% comers safely on ice at 25-30 miles per ho ur after siping where previously we could control the car only at 10 miles per hour. Braking was increased in all cases by 30%."

-- Lynn L. Keil City of Billings, Billings, MT

"The improved safety record of our 44 trucks has earned lower insurance rates."

-- Jim Palmer Trucking, Missoula, MT

"Our truck and trailer tires have 20% better wear after siping."

-- Holland Trans. Co., Fargo, ND

"The traction on ice/snow covered surfaces was much improved."

-- Wayne County Sheriff, Wooster, OH

"Since the tires were siped on our tank truck, we find that braking is better. Tires last longer too."

-- Terreberry Septic Service Ltd.

Port Colborne, Ontario

Call for more information, test results, testimonials, specifications and prices.

For SIPING mounted tires from 12" to 24.5"

The Model ST is our most popular siping machine because it is a multi-purpose unit -- it can sipe any tire from 12" to 24.5". with the adapters available. It's easy to run: operators can be trained in 15 minutes. It's fast: the process takes only 3 to 4 minutes per tire to perform. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used -- as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Twelve cutting blades are furnished with the ST, along with four lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/3 2", a file, and a wrench for switching lead screws.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . three to four minutes per tire.

* Versatile. Depth and width of sipe can be changed in seconds. Five depths: 5/32", 7/32", 9/32", 11/32" and 13/32". Two widths: 4 to the inch, 5 to the inch. Five angles: 90 degrees standard, and optional 45 degrees right or left, 60 degrees right o r left.

* Reliable. Machines have been in operation for over 15 years, trouble free. Siping does not affect the tire warranty of major tire manufacturers.

* Profitable. Permits servicing wide range of customers. Truckers buy their tires from dealers who offer siping services.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" at bottom of scalloped sipe to strengthen tread components.

* Marketing assistance. A factory-trained rep will set up the machine, instruct operators, and provide a complete promotional package to help sell siping services to your customers.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height 42"

Width 34"

Side Width 36"

Weight 250 lbs.

Motor 1 HP,110(standard)

For HIGH VOLUME SIPING before mounting on wheels

The Model STE Siper is designed for use by a retreader, large retailer or wholesaler of tires for volume siping before tires are mounted on wheels. The STE is fast. The rim inflates in about five seconds after the operator positions the tire. The whol e process, including the siping, takes less than three minutes.

The Model STE is equipped with an expandable hub to handle rims to fit tire sizes from 13" to 24.5". Four different size rims are needed to accomodate these sizes -- one from 13" to 16", 17" to 20", 20" to 22.5" and 22.5" to 24.5". Rims are optional equ ipment to be selected depending on the tire sizes you most frequently sipe.

Twelve cutting blades are furnished with the STE, along with four lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/32" and a wrench for changing the lead screws.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . entire siping process takes less than three minutes.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" that strengthen tread components to reduce chunking.

* 90 degrees angle cut across tire gives most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired baking vector.

* Sipes remain sharp and gripping -- can be accomplished only by siping after tire is manufactured.

* Profitable. You get repeat business from satisfied customers. You give them increased safety, reduced operating costs and better tire performance.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height 45"

Width 42" Side Width 40"

Weight 450 lbs.

Motor 1 HP, 110 (standard)

Blades Available from Saf-Tee Siping & distributors

AVIATION GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOWS NEARLY 34% INCREASE IN PERFORMANCE AFTER SAF-TEE (registered) SIPING

This chart shows documented proof of the dramatic increase in draw bar pull that can be expected with the use of "Siped" tires. Siping can reduce the need for tire chains on all your vehicles. Chains are costly and dangerous especially on airport surfa ces. The outlawing of sludded tires made our need even greater. At United where I managed the ground equipment maintenance, we Siped all drive wheel tires, and also some front tires depending on application.

Thousands of dollars were saved by United at O'Hare by reducing the need for chains on all vehicles. They have been using Siped tires for 6 years. For economy and safety I see Siping as a must in all Airport operations.

C.N. HOSTERT

Equipment Maintenance Manager-Retired

O'Hare Field

United Airlines

TIRE SIPING TEST

GATOR TRACTOR 30500# AT 55

TEST ACCOMPLISHED USING DIGAL READOUT DYNAMOMETER ATTACHED TO REAR HITCH OF GATOR AND FRONT HITCH OF T800 WHICH WAS USED FOR LOAD. A. DRAWBAR PULL BEFORE DRY CONCRETE RAMP SIPING AFTER SIPING % INCREASE TEST 1: 14250 15000 5.26% TEST 2: 14200 15300 7.75% TEST 3: 14350 15800 10.10% AVG. 7.70% WET RAMP (FLOODED WITH RUNNING WATER) TEST 1: 11800 13200 11.86% TEST 2: 11900 12800 7.56% TEST 3: 11650 12500 7.30% AVG. 8.91% WET RAMP GLYCOL (FLOODED WITH GLYCOL FROM DEICER) TEST 1: 9750 12400 27.18% TEST 2: 9700 12160 25.36% TEST 3: 9550 11900 24.61% AVG. 25.72%B. BRAKING TEST ACCOMPLISHED STATIC BY LOCKING BRAKES ON GATOR AND DRAGGING WITH T800 BEFORE DRY CONCRETE RAMP SIPING AFTER SIPING % INCREASE TEST 1: 13000 13800 6.15% TEST 2: 13100 14000 6.87% TEST 3: 13200 13950 5.68% AVG. 6.23% WET RAMP (FLOODED WITH RUNNING WATER) TEST 1: 10700 13450 25.70% TEST 2: ? 13600 ? TEST 3: 11200 13900 24.11% AVG. 24.90% WET RAMP . GLYCOL (FLOODED WITH GLYCOL FROM DEICER) TEST 1: 8700 12270 41.03% TEST 2: 9500 12380 30.32% TEST 3: 9500 12400 30.53% AVG. 33.96%

Test conducted by United Airlines Engineers

ID: nht78-4.26

DATE: 06/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal St. Michael's Elementary School 504 Fifth Avenue North Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201

Dear Mrs. Litchy:

This responds to your April 23, 1985 letter asking about our regulations for school buses. You recently purchased a used 1980 model year 12- passenger van to carry school children to school-related activities, and to carry senior citizens and other adult groups.

I would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these is the motor vehicle safety standards issued by us under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and school bus equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers and dealers selling new buses to schools must sell buses that meet our school bus safety standards.

Since your sales transaction involved a used bus, the Vehicle Safety Act would not apply. In the event you decide to buy a new school bus, however, I would like you to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses to St. Michael's School. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

The second set of regulations for school buses was issued by us under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, operate as recommendations for state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (copy enclosed), Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations on school bus identification and equipment, operation, and maintenance. Those recommendations cover both new and used school buses. This guideline could affect the operation of your van if North Dakota has adopted Standard 17 as its own policy.

I want to stress that Standard 17 will affect you to the extent that North Dakota has adopted its recommendations as part of North Dakota's highway safety program. Your state officials will be able to give you more information about North Dakota's implementation of Standard 17's recommendations for school vehicles.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

April 23, 1985

TO: Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

FROM: Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal St. Michael's Elementary School 504 5th Ave. North Grand Forks, ND 58201

RE: Regulation for School and Parish use of a twelve passenger van

We recently purchased a 1980 twelve passenger Chevy van for our school and parish. The van will be used to transport groups of children on field trips, to sporting events, adult groups, high school groups, and senior citizens.

I had contacted the Highway Department of North Dakota and they said twelve passenger vans do not need a Class 2 license unless they are 80 or more inches wide.

However, recently a bus driving service in Grand Forks indicated that a twelve passenger van comes under more regulation than that.

Therefore, I am writing to you for clarification of the use of this van for elementary students and parish groups. I would also appreciate a copy of Standard Act 17 that I understand may be helpful.

Thank you. I await your reply.

Sincerely,

ST. MICHAEL'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(Mrs.) Sharon Litchy, Principal

ID: Part 579--EWR--Alliance

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: 571-3 -- multifunction school activity buses -- Georgia Dept of Public Health -- 12-005387

ID: 16-000385 -- 49 CFR Part 581 - Response to Alliance Global

ID: aiam4186

Dear Mr. Flanagan: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin, of our Rulemakin division, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You described a situation in which a client, Saab-Scania of America, imports cars subject to the theft prevention standard and uses them directly as company cars or leases them to employees for their personal use. After such use, the company sells the cars to dealers as used cars. On occasion, these vehicles may have an original equipment major part covered by the theft prevention standard that is so badly damaged during such use that the part must be replaced before the vehicle is delivered to a dealer or distributor. When this occurs, you asked whether the repair would be required to be made with a part marked with the full VIN or whether the repair could be made with a properly marked replacement part. We conclude that when a manufacturer uses a car as a company car in the manner you describe, it may make any necessary repairs to damaged major parts by installing parts marked as replacement parts. This conclusion is explained in detail below.; Section 2(7) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(7)) defines manufacturer as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' (Emphasis added). It is clear under this statutory definition that your client is a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the theft prevention standard, since it is importing motor vehicles for resale.; Section 606(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)(1)) requires vehicle manufactures to certify that each vehicle complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard 'at the time of delivery of such vehicle'. The preamble to the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard discussed this agency's conclusion that the 'delivery' as used in this part of section 606(c)(1) means the delivery from the manufacturer to a dealer or distributor, and that the delivery occurs when the goods are delivered by the seller to a carrier. 50 FR 43166, at 43185-43187, October 24, 1985. In the next sentence, section 606(c)(1) specifies that the certification shall accompany the vehicle until delivery to the first purchaser. NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement means that each vehicle in the lines selected as high theft lines and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be delivered to the first purchaser with *all* covered major parts marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard. However, NHTSA does *not* interpret this statutory provision as requiring that ever first purchaser be delivered a vehicle with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. Instead, the agency believes this means that the first purchaser may receive a vehicle with the undamaged covered original equipment major parts marked with the VIN, and with those covered major parts installed by a dealer or distributor to replace damaged original equipment parts marked as replacement parts.; In accordance with this interpretation, NHTSA does not believe that manufacturer delivers a car to itself, when the car is sold to the public as a new car. However, you have noted a circumstance in which cars are *bona fide* used as company cars and are sold to the public as used cars, not new cars. Congress knew that used cars frequently have some replacement parts substituted for the original equipment parts. However, Title VI contains no requirement that used cars have all covered major parts marked with the VIN. In fact, Title VI presumes that when an original equipment major part is so badly damaged that it must be replaced, it will be replaced with a replacement part marked in conformity with Part 541. This reflects a legislative judgment that such replacement does not increase the opportunity for car thieves to steal the car without fear of being apprehended, or otherwise frustrate the purposes of Title VI, even though the car no longer has all major parts marked with the VIN.; On the other hand, a severe burden would be imposed on al manufacturers if they were required to deliver all *bona fide* company cars to distributors or dealers with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. If this were required and the company car were involved in an accident that required a covered major part to be replaced, the manufacturer would have a choice of either asking the factory to produce a replacement part with the VIN marked on the part and waiting to repair the vehicle until the part marked with the VIN arrived, or ending the vehicle's use as a company car and shipping the unrepaired vehicle to a dealer or distributor with the damaged major part marked with the VIN still on the vehicle. Nothing in the legislative history of Title VI explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended such harsh treatment of company cars under the theft prevention standard.; Balancing the absence of negative policy consequences under Title VI i manufacturers are allowed to repair company cars with properly marked parts against the significant burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers if damaged major parts on company cars had to be replaced with parts marked with the full VIN, NHTSA concludes that Title VI of the Cost Savings Act permits cars damaged while in *bona fide* use as company cars and sold to the public as used cars, to be repaired by the manufacturer using properly marked replacement parts. This conclusion is based on NHTSA's interpretation that *bona fide* use of the car as a company car by the manufacturer is, for all practical and policy purposes, tantamount to a delivery of the vehicle under section 606(c)(1). The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when a company car is later sold to the public as a used car, the consumer purchasing the company car will get a car with the same theft markings as any other used car.; NHTSA would like to note that this interpretation applies only to Titl VI of the Cost Savings Act, and not to any other statutes administered by this agency. Those statutes may have different underlying policy considerations, which might mandate a different conclusion for cars used as company cars. Further, the agency wishes to emphasize that this interpretation applies only to *bona fide* company cars that are sold to the public as used cars, and not to most of the cars manufactured by the manufacturer.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions abou our theft prevention standard.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4436

"Dear Mr. Kallman: This responds to your letter asking for furthe clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of vehicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would apply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter. 1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are 'sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205.' Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to 'approve' some product or process. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You have stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used only in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below. Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act. The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the 'render inoperative' provision. NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no 'rendering inoperative' when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process. In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative the windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process. 2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has 'shown compliance with Standard No. 205,' for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect? Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings is that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields. 3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR /571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process? Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshield to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212. As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from 'rendering inoperative' a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, including Standard No. 212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the 'render inoperative' prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are ground into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4940

"Dear Mr. Klisz: This responds to your letter regarding foreign-mad tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a 'DOT' certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with 'DOT', requested this office to 'determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to our records.' You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria.' See 102(2) . The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and all new tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards. Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire. As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance. Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with 'DOT', that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a 'DOT' symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat, damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new. Further, the absence of a 'DOT' symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not necessarily mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a 'DOT' symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not certify that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire. You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process, the manufacturer's designated agent is not responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States. Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the 'DOT' marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to 'verify the accuracy' of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's self-certification that the tire complies with applicable standards, the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards. NHTSA would only have information about the 'accuracy' of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";