Interpretation ID: nht76-5.65

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pillsbury; Madison & Sutro

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 11, 1976, question whether @ 574.7 of Part 574 (Tire Identification and Record Keeping) (49 CFR Part 574), requires that the brand name owner of a single tire brand must supply to its dealers tire registration forms that conform to the dimensions specified for the "universal form" described in Figure 3 of the regulation. You also request confirmation that a tire registration form "which fits credit card imprinters and provides for the registration of only two tires" is similar in format to the form described in Figure 3.

Section 574.7 of the regulation specifies in part that ". . . forms conforming in size and similar in format to Figure 3 shall be provided to those dealers who request them. . . ." As stated in the preamble accompanying the requirement, the purpose of the specification is to ease the problem of the multi-brand dealer who was "faced with a multiplicity of different forms and procedures for tire registration" (39 FR 19482, June 3, 1974). The requirement that the "universal form" conform in size as well as format was added in conjunction with a similar requirement for dealers, in response to petitions for reconsideration of the June amendment (39 FR 28658, November 1, 1974).

Review of the changes indicates clearly that the requirement for conformity in size of the "universal form" was directed only to the situation of multi-brand dealers. The NHTSA does not consider the manufacturer or brand name owner of one tire brand to be subject to this requirement in the case of a dealer who sells only one brand of tires. It is clear that any advantage in the storage of different forms from different tire manufacturers would not apply in the case of a one-brand dealer. Accordingly, the NHTSA interprets @ 574.7 to not require conformity in the size of forms supplied by a tire manufacturer, brand name owner, or its designee, in the case of requests from dealers that sell only one brand of tire.

In answer to your second request, the NHTSA considers a tire registration form which provides for the registration of only two tires to be similar in format to the form described in Figure 3. Any variation from the size of the form described in Figure 3 would, of course, be subject to the limitation just discussed.

SINCERELY,

PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO

May 11, 1976

Standard Oil Company of California - Atlas Tire Registration Forms

Fred Schwartz, Esq. Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Please refer to our recent telephone conversation concerning the requirements imposed by 49 CFR Section 574.7 (as amended November 1, 1974). The section reads, in relevant part, as follows:

". . . forms conforming in size and similar in format to Figure 3 shall be provided to those dealers who request them, or if the dealer prefers, he may supply his own form as long as it contains the required information, conforms in size, and is similar in format to Figure 3."

The foregoing requirement is imposed upon the "tire manufacturer, brand name owner and retreader or his designee." Apparently Standard Oil Company of California as the designee of the owner of the "Atlas" brand name would be subject to the requirement.

The previous version of this provision merely required that forms "similar to Figure 3" be provided. I understand that the objective of the change was in large part to simplify storage and choice of forms for dealers and in part to simplify data processing for a particular company which processes tire registration forms for many small tire manufacturers. As Standard does its own data processing and does not retain the registration cards, I question whether the Company must provide forms of the standard dimensions to dealers who may request them merely for their own convenience in storage. It appears to me that unless all forms are meant to be and are actually interchangeable at the dealer's end, no purpose is served by imposing this requirement on Standard. It is estimated that it will cost the Company $ 30,000 annually to comply with the new size requirement as the form is part of a warranty and information booklet slightly different in size. I would appreciate your comments.

Second, would you kindly confirm your telephone advice that the location of the required information on the form is not prescribed by the format of Figure 3; specifically, a redesigned form which fits credit card imprinters and provides for only two tires per registration form would still be "similar in format to Figure 3" within the meaning of the regulation.

Judith E. Ciani for Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro