ID: 77-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oaklahoma Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 16, 1976, letter concerning tires marked "Reno Farm Tire--Farm Use Only" that are appearing on some passenger cars in Oklahoma. I understand that the DOT symbol is also marked on the sidewalls of these tires, as a certification of conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars.

Paragraph S6 of the standard precludes the manufacture of farm tires in passenger car tire sizes unless those tires conform to and are certified as conforming to all aspects of the standard. There is not, however, any provision in Standard No. 109 that prohibits the additional marking that you have described on a tire that is manufactured and sold for passenger car use. No safety issue appears to be presented by this situation.

You have also asked who is responsible for compliance with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed). That regulation creates various obligations for tire manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle dealers, and others. Where a tire manufacturer sells tires to a trailer manufacturer, the presence of the "Farm Use Only" marking has no effect on those obligations.

SINCERELY,

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

December 16, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA

In the State of Oklahoma, there is now appearing on some passenger cars tires which were manufactured by UniRoyal, Inc. These tires are labeled "Reno Farm Tire -- Farm Use Only". Apparently, these tires meet FMVSS 109, as they do bear DOT on the side wall. While we are fully cognizant that NHTSA has allowed the labeling "Reno Farm Tire", we would like to know why a tire manufacturer has the prerogative of labeling a tire with any type labeling such as Farm Use Only, Farm Implement, etc., even though the tire presumably meets FMVSS 109.

Additionally, assuming the tire manufacturer sold this type of tire marked "Farm Use Only" to a manufacturer of trailers, who becomes responsible for complying with Part 570 of FMVSS Tire Records and Identification?

Lt. C. R. Townsend, Director Motor Vehicle Inspection Division

ID: 77-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request of February 17, 1977, for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they apply to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In particular, you ask how much force must be used when testing school bus seat belt anchorages for compliance with the standards.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, initially proposed that seat belt anchorages be installed in all school buses. At that time, we also proposed that each seat belt assembly be tested under a force of 1,500 pounds. A seat containing three seating positions would have had the three seat belt assemblies tested simultaneously with a possible resulting load upon the seat of 4,500 pounds. The requirement of seat belt anchorages in larger buses was dropped from the proposal based upon comments from school bus operators and as a result of our compartmentalization approach to passenger seating safety in school buses.

The present Standard No. 222 requires seat belts and anchorages in small buses and mandates testing of the anchorages as outlined in Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 requires in S4.2.1 that each seat belt assembly sustain a force application of 5,000 pounds. Where two adjacent seating positions have a common seat belt anchorage mounted on a seat frame, the two seat belt assemblies must simultaneously sustain a 5,000 pound force for a maximum load on the seat of 10,000 pounds.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires the simultaneous testing of all seat-mounted seat belt assemblies, whether or not they have common anchorages. However, Standard No. 207 is not applicable to school bus seats constructed in accordance with Standard No. 222, and it is not necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies attached to anchorages mounted on a school bus seat frame.

ID: 77-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1976, petition to amend Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In your petition you request that the NHTSA withdraw the requirements for seat belts in buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Secondly, you suggest that the NHTSA reconsider the validity of establishing 10,000 pounds GVWR as the dividing line between buses that must be equipped with seat belts and those which need not be so equipped. The NHTSA denies your requested rulemaking.

The NHTSA mandated the installation of seat belts in school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, because these vehicles are subject to different crash pulses than larger school buses under the same accident circumstances. To ensure adequate protection for children transported in these vehicles, the NHTSA applied to small school buses some of the seating requirements mandated for larger buses plus the installation of seat belts. Since we are aware of no data indicating that small buses do not need the additional protection provided by seat belts, the NHTSA considers the necessary safety requirement.

The second recommendation in your petition suggests that the NHTSA classification of vehicles into two groups, one with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less and another with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, is arbitrary. You indicate that a vehicle weighing slightly more than 10,000 pounds will not react in a crash situation significantly different than a vehicle slightly under 10,000 pounds. Accordingly, you suggest that there is no valid reason to have different requirements for buses within a relatively narrow weight range.

The NHTSA has historically classified vehicles into the two weight groupings you mention. This has been done in part because there are significant differences between large and small vehicles with respect to their reactions in crashes. The agency realizes that any line differentiating the two classes may seem arbitrary to manufacturers of vehicles that fall barely on either side of the line. Arguably, these vehicles, similar in many respects, would exhibit only minor differences in crash pulse in any given accident situation. Nonetheless, the classification is valid for the majority of vehicles in each class. Since we are aware of no data that would indicate that a line could better be drawn elsewhere, the NHTSA has decided to retain the present classification.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

December 10, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

The Wayne Corporation petitions NHTSA to either: Delete from FMVSS 222, Section S5(b), the requirements for and reference to 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210; or delete from FMVSS 222, all of Section S5(b) and revise Section S5(a) to include school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less.

The reason for this petition is based on Wayne's contention that FMVSS 222 unfairly discriminates against a particular class of school bus vehicles and that it is unreasonable as it applies to school bus vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less; and if allowed to stand, will force the manufacturers to cease production and withdraw this class of vehicle from the market.

This petition requests that the requirement that seat belts be installed and the requirement for seat belts and seat belt anchorages as applied to school bus vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less be eliminated from FMVSS 222.

The subject of seat belts in school buses has been and continues to be a controversial one. Seat belt proponents, who are safety advocates, promise a reduction in injury severity and reduced fatalities in school bus accidents if seat belts are used. Seat belt opponents, who are primarily school bus operators, predict dire consequences if seat belts are mandated for school buses. Wayne believes that NHTSA has been exposed to the pros and cons of this discussion, therefore, it is unnecessary for purposes of this petition to delineate in detail the positions of both points of view. To say that school bus operators object to seat belts in school buses is a gross understatement of their position in the matter. As discussed in the preamble of Docket No. 73-3, Notice 05, the school bus operators even objected to the proposal that seat belt anchorages be installed in school buses for fear that this would encourage the installation of seat belts. Wayne maintains that all other things being equal, the school bus operator, given the choice between the bus equipped with seat belts and a bus without seat belts, will always purchase the bus that does not have seat belts.

Currently school buses in the 16 to 24 passenger capacity range with gross vehicle weight ratings under 10,000 pounds and just over 10,000 pounds (10,500 to 11,000 pounds) are being marketed. Typical of this situation is the Wayne Busette and the Carpenter Cadet. The Wayne Busette is manufactured by the Wayne Division of Richmond, Indiana, has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds, and will accommodate up to 20 seated passengers (see the enclosed Busette specification sheet). The Carpenter Cadet CV is manufactured by the Carpenter Body Works, Inc. of Mitchell, Indiana, has a GVWR of 10,500 pounds, and will accommodate up to 23 seated passengers (see enclosed copy of Cadet literature).

Both of these buses currently list for approximately $ 9,500. FMVSS 222, when it becomes effective, will require that both buses have seats which meet the same performance requirements, however, in addition, the Busette must have seat belts which comply with FMVSS 208, 209, and 210, installed at each passenger seating position. Wayne estimates that the increase in cost due to the seat belts alone will be in the $ 200 to $ 500 range.

FMVSS 222 discriminates against the small school bus with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds because seat belts are unacceptable to bus operators and alternate types of buses having the same functional characteristics are available without seat belts and the accompanying increased cost.

Wayne considers FMVSS 222 as it applies to school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less to be unreasonable because the increase in weight attributable to the standard's requirement for seat belts will result in a total vehicle weight in excess of the GVWR of chassis available to body manufacturers and, therefore, will necessitate the removal of this type of vehicle from the market. The excess weight is attributable to the standard's requirement for seat belts in the Busette class of school bus as is shown in the following. Chassis Manufacturer's GVWR for Busette chassis 8,900 lbs. Total Busette weight including passengers pre-FMVSS 222 8,728 lbs. Increased weight due to the FMVSS 222 seat performance requirements without seat belts 104 lbs.

8,832 lbs. Increased weight due to FMVSS 222 require- ments for seat belts and their supporting systems 256 lbs. Total Busette Weight Post-FMVSS 222 9,088 lbs. Chassis GVWR 8,900 lbs. Vehicle Gross Weight Excess 188 lbs.

Since the Busette's introduction in 1974, the Wayne Division has produced and sold approximately 2,500 Busette vehicles, 2,400 of which have been school buses. Wayne has every reason to believe that the Busette school bus is a viable product in the market place as each year since its introduction, unit sales have increased at the rate of 10% to 15%. With the installation of seat belts as mandated by FMVSS 222, the gross vehicle weight will exceed the available chassis manufacturer's GVWR, therefore, Wayne will be forced to withdrawn the Busette school bus from the market. By taking the Busette off the market, the bus operator's choice of vehicles will be reduced forcing him to purchase vehicles which are more costly to operate. In addition, such action will reduce employment opportunities in Richmond, Indiana, and result in a financial hardship to the Wayne Division.

NHTSA's reason for requiring seat belts for small school buses is based on their contention that a more severe crash pulse is experienced by the smaller vehicles as compared with the larger vehicles under similar accident conditions. This may be a reasonable position for vehicles with a difference in GVWR of the magnitude of 10,000 to 15,000 pounds, however, as pointed out above, school buses just over the standard's 10,000 pound classification demarcation are available and this position cannot be justified for buses with a difference of 1,000 to 2,000 pounds GVWR.

In addition, NHTSA's position on seat belts seems to be inconsistent as illustrated in their reply to the Physicians for Automotive Safety request for seat belts in school buses. In Docket 73-3, Notice 05, NHTSA reiterates their position on seat belts, namely, "that a requirement for seat belts without the assurance of proper supervision of their use would not be an effective means of providing occupant protection." If seat belts will not provide an effective means of occupant protection in the big buses because of the absence of proper supervision, it logically follows that seat belts will also not provide an effective means of occupant protection in the small bus for the same reasons. Therefore, the requirement for seat belts should be altogether eliminated from the standard.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

CARPENTER Cadet "CV" '76

(Enclosure Omitted)

ID: 77-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cooper

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, question whether your client, a retail tire dealer, would be in violation of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if he were to sell tires which do not contain an identification number as required by the NHTSA.

Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 CFR 571.109, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, requires passenger car tires to be labelled in accordance with Part 574. The absence of an identification number means that the tire is not in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 109. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides in part that no person shall sell any item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in conformity with applicable standards. Since your client would be selling nonconforming tires, he would be in violation of our Act and, therefore, subject to the penalties imposed thereunder. Section 109(a) of the Act establishes a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the Act, not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

SINCERELY,

PETER COOPER ATTORNEY AT LAW

March 1, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In connection with an inquiry from a client of mine, I have studied the 1975 regulation with reference to the requirement that all tires sold must have identification numbers thereon. My client is a retail tire dealer and tells me he has an opportunity to buy a lot of tires on which the identification numbers have been removed. I am told that these tires were bought for export but by reason of some restriction, the owner of said tires is unable to export them and is trying to sell them to my client.

The regulation seems to impose a penalty on manufacturers, or possibly others who sell tires on which the numbers have been removed.

It is my desire to inform my client that the regulations must be complied with but I am not clear as to whether the penalty imposed by the regulation would apply to a retail dealer.

I would appreciate it if you would advise me whether or not my client would be in violation of the regulation and subject to penalties if he buys the tires and then sells them at retail to his customers.

Peter Cooper

ID: 77-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, preempts the parking brake requirements specified in New York's school bus brake system regulations.

Safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective April 1, 1977, for school buses and establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems on these vehicles. The standard includes a static test requirement for parking brake systems (grade-holding capability) and a dynamic test requirement for service brake systems (emergency stopping capability). The New York brake system regulations include a static test requirement and also a dynamic test requirement for parking brake systems. You ask whether Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of New York's dynamic test requirement for parking brakes.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivisions of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 includes requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. It is the agency's opinion, therefore, that Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of the nonidentical aspects of New York's school bus parking brake requirements.

However, the second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not preempt governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use if such requirements impose a higher standard of performance. Thus, the State of New York may specify these additional parking brake requirements for public school buses. The second sentence of @ 103(d) does not permit governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all aspects of Standard No. 105-75. A school bus manufacturer, therefore, would have to meet the force requirements specified in Standard No. 105-75 for engagement of the parking brake, even for school buses intended for New York's own use.

ID: 77-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. T. Schellhase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a groove is cut around the tire and a white compound is inserted into the groove.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

SINCERELY,

February 23, 1977

David T. Schellhase

This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1977, concerning the manufacturing of tires.

I have forwarded your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of this Department, which has regulatory jurisdiction over highway safety matters, including the establishment of safety standards, enforcement of standards, and the investigation of apparent defects in motor vehicles or automobile components.

You will hear from NHTSA directly.

(Miss) Antonia P. Uccello Director Office of Consumer Affairs

Feb. 17, 1977

Dear Sirs,

I have been refered to your office by the Highway Patrol. My question is this. I have been offered a business opportunity which consists of servicing car dealers and making whitewall tires out of existing blackwall tires on both new and used cars. This is done by a machine which cut a grove into the sidewall of the tire and then a white compound is flowed into the grove. My insurance agent told me that because of the cutting of the tire he could not write me business insurance. Is the alteration of tires like I have explained illegal, as I myself question weather the process may cause tire failure or a blow out. I would certainly appreciate, any information you could offer. Thank you!

David T. Schellhase

ID: 77-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1977, asking two questions about the use of strobe lamps on school buses.

Your first question is whether it is "legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?" The answer is yes provided such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887 "School Bus Red Signal Lamps."

You also reference "certification from our vendor . . . that his system meets FMVSS if installed according to his instructions." You have asked if this letter from your vendor is "adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?" In an earlier opinion letter on this subject (to Yankee Metal Products Corporation of April 12, 1976) we opined that an ETL test report submitted by the company plus an opinion by a professional engineer indicating compliance of a strobe lamp design with SAE J887 provided a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Since you did not enclose the letter from your vendor we cannot comment upon it. However the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a manufacturer exercise due care in insuring that its certification is not false and misleading in a material respect, and you should exercise the same care in this instance that you do with respect to insuring compliance of other items of lighting devices with which your buses are equipped.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 29, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

REFERENCE: 1. New Jersey Register, January 6, 1977

2. Letter, Donald J. Sumple to Mr. Donald Peck dated 3-25-77

"On December 1, 1976, Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of Education and Secretary to the Board of Education, pursuant to authority of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-21 and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted a new rule, to be cited as N.J.A.C. 6:21-19.1, concerning school bus warning lamps (strobe), substantially as proposed in the Notice published October 7, 1976, at 8 N.J.R. 454(a), but with subsequent, substantive changes not detrimental to the public, in the opinion of the Department of Education.

This rule is mandated for school buses manufactured May 1, 1977, and thereafter. This rule is permissive for school buses manufactured prior to May 1, 1977."

The above quote from reference 1 indicates that strobe type warning lamps are required on New Jersey school buses manufactured after May 1, 1977.

We have worked with several vendors to get a system to meet both the New Jersey requirements and FMVSS 108. We have no test facility of our own to determine compliance of such a system with FMVSS 108 and, furthermore, understand that there is some ambiguity of FMVSS 108 with regard to strobe lamps.

We have received certification from our vendor, reference 2, that his system meets FMVSS 108 if installed according to his instructions.

We have these questions:

1. Is it legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?

2. If so, is reference 2 adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?

Your early response is needed so that we can adequately meet May 1 production requirements for New Jersey.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

C: DON PECK; JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT

ID: 77-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request of March 28, 1977, for clarification of the language of S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you ask whether the long side of a rectangular roof exit is required to be parallel to the center line of a bus.

S5.4.1 requires that an exit provide "an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches." Further, S5.2.1 of the standard states that a roof exit shall meet these requirements when the bus is overturned on either side. The requirement that the major axis be kept horizontal while the bus is on its side means that the major axis, and therefore the long side of the rectangular roof exit, would be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Irene Glessner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 21, 1977, letter asking whether a tire dealer is required to record the serial numbers of the tires he sells.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates regulations pertaining to tires. One of these regulations, Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tire dealers and distributors to obtain information when the tire is sold and to forward that information to the tire manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of this regulation for your information. In @ 574.7 of the regulation you will find the exact information for which a tire dealer is responsible.

A tire dealer would not be responsible for the ultimate recall of tires. The information which a dealer submits to a manufacturer enables the manufacturer to undertake recalls. Failure to record and submit the information to a manufacturer would be a violation of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1397). Each violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $ 1,000 up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of violations (15 U.S.C. 1398).

SINCERELY,

March 21, 1977

The Chairman National Transportation Safety Board

Dear Sir:

I am very much interested in finding out about the law (if there is one) that requires a tire dealer to record the serial numbers of the tires that he sells.

If I am not writing to the correct government agency, will you please tell me where to direct my inquiry?

I want to find out if there is a specific penalty or fine that can be levied against a tire dealer if he has not recorded the serial numbers of tires he sells, and at a later time there is some conflict or a recall pertaining to the sale of those tires.

Thank you for your assistance.

Irene Glessner

ID: 77-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Commission on Federal Paperwork, Frank Horton - Chairman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 9, 1977, letter requesting a copy of the report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to the Senate Commerce Committee's inquiries concerning the recordkeeping requirements of the tire registration program. I too am interested in reducing the burden upon the public occasioned by unnecessary paperwork. In accordance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA report.

Regarding your comments concerning the viability of a voluntary tire registration technique to replace the present registration program, you should note that the NHTSA has considered the possibility of a voluntary registration procedure similar to the warranty card procedure utilized by appliance manufacturers. Through informal inquiries of appliance manufacturers, the agency discovered that return of warranty cards averages about 50 percent in the case of expensive appliances and falls as low as 10 percent in the case of 10- to 35-dollar items. An entirely separate problem arises with voluntary registration of tires in that the purchaser cannot be expected to distinguish the serial number from other numbers that appear on each tire. More important, the identification number is placed on the side opposite the whitewall on many tires, and it is probable that the purchaser would fail to locate the correct number in the typical situation where the tires are mounted on his vehicle before he sees them.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK

Honorable Brock Adams Secretary Department of Transportation

We greatly appreciate the Department of Transportation's past cooperation with the Commission on Federal Paperwork. It is our hope that in continuing to work together on specific paperwork problems we will be able to reduce significantly the burden borne by the public.

The Commission has received comments concerning the burdensome reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the mandatory new and retread tire registration program of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It has been brought to our attention that voluntary registration may be a viable alternative to the current reporting program which could reduce the burden on tire dealers and manufacturers.

We have learned that the Senate Commerce Committee has sent you a letter requesting data on the tire registration program including the number of new and retread tires recalled and the percentage of registrants who comply with the program. In order for the Commission to adequately review the reporting requirements we would like to receive a copy of the report you are preparing for the Committee.

We appreciate your continuing cooperation and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With kindest personal regards,

Frank Horton Chairman