ID: nht75-5.23

DATE: 08/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CALL FROM YOKOHAMA TIRE CO. REPRESENTATIVE -- AUGUST 21, 1975

I received a call at 5 p.m. on August 21, 1975, from Mr. N. Harada, a representative of Yokohama Tire Corporation, with regard to the effective dates of the U.T.Q.G.S. Rule. I explained to him that six manufacturers who are litigating the validity of the Rule had brought a motion to stay the enforcement and postpone the effective dates of the Rule, and that on August 14, 1975, the Court granted the motion to stay.

He asked when the Rule would become effective; I responded that I could not say when, because the matter was in litigation and that I did not want to speculate about the Court's judgment. I further explained that the only effective dates which the agency had set were those in the Rule, e.g., January 1, 1976, for radial tires, but that the Court last week issued a stay. He asked whether, in the event that the validity of the Rule was upheld by the Court, new, later effective dates would be established; I responded that any answer I could now give to that question would be speculation and that the agency has set no other effective dates.

Mr. Harada also asked when the Court would decide the validity of the Rule. I told him that this was under the control of the Court, not the agency. He was under the mistaken impression that the Court was or is going to rule on the effective dates or some related matter this week. I explained that the only operative "event" that I am aware of which would occur this week is the filing of the Petitioners' brief on the merits, which was due to be filed by last Monday, August 18, and which we have not yet actually received. Subsequently, I continued, the Government would file its brief on the merits, and then the Petitioners would have an opportunity to file a reply brief and the case would then be set down for oral argument. After oral argument, which would not take place before October and might be in December or later, depending upon when the Court scheduled it, the Court would deliberate and then issue its ruling. I explained that the agency had no control over how long the Court deliberates or when the Court would issue its ruling.

I tried to give the above answers and explanations slowly and clearly, because there appeared to be a language barrier; the caller was courteous, but English was obviously a second language to him, and it seemed that he may have been somewhat confused.

The next day, August 22, Mr. Harada again phoned in the late afternoon and stated that, in reference to his previous call, the subject matter was "very important" and he would therefore like to have it in writing. At his request, I told him that I would send him a letter.

ID: nht75-5.24

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The University of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 22, 1975, which inquired about the status of tire grading standards.

On May 20, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards with a series of effective dates beginning January 1, 1976 (40 FR 23073, May 28, 1975). On July 3, 1975, the regulation was republished with minor changes (40 FR 28071). On August 14, 1975, a stay of the effective dates was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pending review of the validity of the regulation in a suit brought by eight tire manufacturers.

For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of the Federal Register notices referred to above.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

May 22, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel; U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30(MPP)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

On August 12, 1974 you were kind enough to bring me up to date on the proposed Federal Tire Grade Labeling Standards.

The proposed effective date of May 1, 1975 has now passed and I suspect from recent radio reports that there have been some additional changes in the Standards and in the effective date.

I will appreciate being updated on the situation again so that I may pass the information on to our State Extension personnel.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

James H. Whitaker -- Associate Professor, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

ID: nht75-5.25

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth J. Mason

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of August 7, 1975, concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards established by this agency. Although the formal comment period for the proposals on which this regulation is based ended April 23, 1975, we appreciate your support for the regulation as issued. A copy of your letter has been placed in our public files.

Thank you for expressing your interest.

SINCERELY,

August 7, 1975

James Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

I have recently read in the "Modern Tire Dealer" June 1975 issue, that seven major tire manufacturer have filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati to (Illegible word) the new tire grading regulation issued by the Department of Transportation.

I want to go on record, and this letter can be used as evidence, definitely recommending that the Department of Transportation be allowed to continue with its regulation establishing a new grading system. This system will benefit the consumer, save lives in the long run, bring some order to an industry that has been confusing the driving public too long.

I have been in the tire business for 26 years since graduating from the University of Wisconsin in 1949. I have been a partner in a tire business in Nausau, Wisconsin, for the past 20 years. I am confused about the quality of tires sold to the motoring public. Some of the seven manufacturers sell tires to buying groups and these buying groups put a designation of premium on those tires. They look like premium tires and give long mileage. However, I have had numerous people tell me that these tires do not have good stopping ability. The rubber must be so hard that they sacrifice stopping and cornering traction to give the customer longer mileage. Now I ask the question - Is this truly a premium tire - should it carry "premium" as part of its name?

The tire I have described here is sold by Fleet Farm and is called Premium Duralon. It has in the past been manufactured by Davton Tire, a subsidiary of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I believe this tire should be checked out and used as evidence in the government case for grading.

I believe the public is being duped by these manufacturers. They have too long continued the general public and the tire dealers of this country. Now we have a chance to clear up this situation.

Kenneth J. Mason

ID: nht75-5.26

DATE: 09/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you asked whether the uniform tire quality grading requirements for furnishing information to prospective purchasers of vehicles apply to prospective purchasers of vehicles other than passenger cars that may be equipped with passenger car tires. This was asked in light of the fact that the tire quality grading rule itself applies to tires manufactured for use on passenger cars

We do not consider that the requirements of @ 575.6(a) and (c), regarding the furnishing of consumer information to motor vehicle buyers and prospective purchasers, apply to the sale of trucks or other non-passenger-car vehicles where uniform tire quality grading information is concerned.

We recognize that the language of the regulation may not be entirely clear in this regard, and are considering an interpretive amendment to clarify it.

Sincerely,

July 30, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of Section (d)(1)(ii) of @ 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We are somewhat confused by certain of the requirements of @ 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, and would appreciate your clarification of them for us.

@ 575.104 (d)(1)(ii) specifies:

"In the case of information required in accordance with @ 575.6(c) to be furnished to prospective purchasers of motor vehicles and tires, each vehicle manufacturer and each tire manufacturer or brand name owner shall as part of that information list all possible grades for traction and temperature resistance, and restate verbatim the explanations for each performance area specified in Figure 2. . . ."

@ 575.104(c), Application, states that this section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars after 1948.

Our question, therefore, is whether or not the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(ii) apply to manufacturers of trucks for which passenger car tires are used.

Since this is an urgent matter, we would appreciate your response as soon as possible. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. -- Y. UEDA FOR

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: nht75-5.27

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co. of America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of June 30, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the treadwear test procedure specified in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the UTQGS regulation does not describe the tests which you must perform. It describes the procedures which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will follow in its compliance testing. Your legal duty is to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to these procedures, the tires will meet the grades which you have assigned to them.

In its compliance testing, the NHTSA expects to utilize two teams of drivers operating in two shifts, for the very reasons suggested in your letter of June 19, 1975. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, you appear to have misinterpreted the vehicle rotation procedure specified in paragraph (e) (2) (viii) (C) of the regulation, which reads as follows:

Rotate the vehicles in the convoy by moving the last vehicle to the lead position. Do not rotate driver position within the convoy. (emphasis added)

Therefore, the lead drivers ("A" and "E" in your chart) will remain the lead drivers throughout the testing, although the vehicle which they drive will change from day to day. Your chart would be correct if the words "Vehicle No." were replaced by the words "Convoy Position No." and if the vehicles were rotated as follows: Convoy Position No.: 1 2 3 4 Day 1 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Day 2 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Day 3 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Day 4 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Day 5 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Day 6 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Day 7 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Day 8 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1

Sincerely,

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

June 19, 1975

Office of the Chief Counsel, National Hwy. Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: TIRE WEAR TEST PROCEDURE FOR UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING STANDARDS

This letter is to check with you if the proposed test procedure shown below, is permissible in view of the (2) (VIII) (C) of "Treadwear grading conditions and procedures" in section 575.104 Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, which says:

" (C) Rotate the vehicles in the convoy by moving the last vehicle to the lead position. Do not rotate driver position within the convoy."

1. Proposed Test Procedure

In order that we will be able to run test vehicles 800 miles per day, they are permitted to operate by two (2) shifts and two (2) teams of drivers, one team consists of A, B, C and D drivers and another team consists of E, F, G and H drivers. The following chart may help you to understand the proposed test procedure. Vehicle No. No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4 Miles 1st shift A B C D 400 1st day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 2nd day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 3rd day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 4th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 5th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 6th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 7th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 8th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 Total: 6,400

2. Effect of the proposed test procedure:-

2-1. We will be able to find the results faster.

2-2. San Angelo test course will be made use of effectively by the rubber manufacturers and independent testing companies.

2-3. Safe and accurate driving will be expected by evading continuous and monotonous driving by one driver.

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter.

Sota Nakajima Technical Representative

ID: nht75-5.28

DATE: 11/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretation file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CALL FROM PATRICK RAHER, ESQ. OF HOGAN & HARTSON, ESQS., REPRESENTING MERCEDES-BENZ, ON SEPT. 15, 1975

The subject telephone call was referred to me by Mark Schwimmer. I explained to the caller the status of the UTQGS litigation, the briefing schedule, and the meaning of the stay order. He stated that Mark Schwimmer had read to him the text of Judge Weick's stay order.

The caller's questions and my responses were essentially the same as those covered in my August 27, 1975 memorandum in reference to telephone calls from Yokohama Tire Company and Transportation, Inc.

ID: nht75-5.29

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allam Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

COPYEE: R. B. DYSON; M. SCHWIMMER

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CALL FROM SPEEDY HIRAL OF MAZDA ON AUG. 28, 1975, CONCERNING MEANING OF COURT ORDER STAYING UTQGS

The subject telephone call was referred to my by Mark Senwimmer. I explained the same information to him as was given to Yokohama Tire Corp. and Transportation Testing, Inc. (Aug. 27 memo). The caller stated that his company must prepare for "the worst," which, he concluded, would be the Court lifting the stay without extending the effective dates, and therefore should commerce testing at San Angelo. I responded that while that may be his company's business judgment, the agency had taken no position in this regard subsequent to the issuance of the stay order.

ID: nht75-5.3

DATE: 08/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Orscheln Lever Sales Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 10, 1975, in which you request a copy of the proposed rule dealing with tilt cab vehicle latch systems (Docket No. 69-27), which was referred to this office by the Docket Section.

Notice 1 of Docket 69-27 was published as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on October 22, 1969 (34 FR 17115). On January 25, 1972, a notice was published suspending rulemaking on 69-27 and providing that no regulation would be issued without additional notice and opportunity for comment (37 FR 1120). There has been no further action taken on tilt cab vehicle latch systems since that date.

If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1975

Docket Section Federal Highway Administration

Re: 49 CFR Part 371; Docket No. 69-27 Tilt Cab Vehicle Latch Systems; Trucks

In a recent publication referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the notation appeared advising that on the date of August 1, 1971, proposed issue date of rules was to be effective.

As I commented for our company on Notice 1 of this document January 9, 1970, we have been anticipating a copy of the proposed rule.

This copy has not been received. Please advise if the date has been set back or if this document has been published, please forward a copy.

ORSCHELN LEVER SALES COMPANY

E. Cooper Lipshield, Manager Research and Development

ID: nht75-5.30

DATE: 04/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Jim Kielty

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1975, requesting information concerning the odometer disclosure requirements contained in Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).

I have enclosed copies of the package that was sent to the State Attorneys General requesting their assistance in attacking the problem of odometer tampering and the report made by the agency pursuant to Section 413 of the Act.

You ask whether odometers are now tamper-proof and whether a Federal standard exists which requires their use. As far as we know, there is no item which could be called a "tamper-proof" odometer currently in use on motor vehicles. Some vehicle manufacturers have tamper-resistant odometers, but, I do not know if these are installed as standard equipment on vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not promulgated a standard requiring the inclusion of tamper-resistant odometers in motor vehicles. The concept has been examined, but the problems inherent in specifying objective criteria for tamper-resistance appeared great. It became apparent that development of a "tamper-proof" odometer specification was not possible, since we are uncertain if there is any way of making an odometer truly tamper-proof. We are open to suggestions as to how we might develop criteria that would ensure some level of tamper resistance.

Since the Federal odometer disclosure statement is mandatory throughout the United States, there is no pressure on States to make the Federal statement mandatory via State law. Some States have retained the odometer laws of disclosure that were in effect in their State prior to the enactment of the Cost Savings Act. In these States, the State law is not affected by the Federal requirements, as long as the Federal requirements are fulfilled. We do not know how many States have adopted disclosure requirements identical to the Federal ones. However, we support such a move, since it would then enable the State to enforce its provision and utilize any State remedies that might be available for noncompliance.

To date, the NHTSA has not prepared any model State odometer tampering legislation. We do, however, intend to develop a model State law sometime in the near future. Any State that requests assistance in preparing odometer tampering legislation for presentation to the State legislature would be provided with the model law.

Based on a survey conducted by the NHTSA concerning the level of compliance with the disclosure requirements of the odometer law, it became apparent that a large number of used car dealers are not complying with the disclosure provisions. We have been attempting to solve this problem by enlisting the aid not only of the National Automobile Dealers Association but the Dealers Safety Mobility Council and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. In addition, a public information campaign has been initiated by the NHTSA that hopefully will ameliorate the current odometer disclosure problem.

Private civil actions have been brought under the Cost Savings Act. Since they are private actions, it would be very difficult for us to monitor them. Thus, we must rely on individuals to report cases to us. For this reason, we do not know how many actions have been initiated, nor how they have been resolved.

We have received numerous reports alleging repeated violations of the Act by single dealers. However, since we have no investigative authority under the Act, we are unable to investigate the reports to obtain evidence necessary to bring an injunctive suit (the only Federal enforcement remedy under the Act). We were able to obtain sufficient evidence to bring such a suit in Florida. That case is currently in progress and had the advantage of two informats who were prior employees of the defendant and willing to testify against him.

ID: nht75-5.31

DATE: 03/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Michael P. Dixon

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1975, requesting information concerning penalties available for failure to provide an odometer disclosure form upon sale of a vehicle.

As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's correct mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, however, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. Violation of any of these requirements may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.

If you have reason to believe that the odometer mileage was altered by someone other than the person who actually sold you the vehicle, you are not precluded from suing him. The Act does not limit your recovery for a violation to your immediate transferor.

Where a vehicle has been rebuilt, the odometer mileage that is relevant for purposes of the Cost Savings Act, is the number of miles the chassis has traveled.

I have enclosed the materials you requested.

YOURS TRULY,

U.S Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

GENTLEMEN:

Could you please send me a copy of the exact wording of section 409(a) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513. I have the fact sheet on the odometer law that the GSA was so kind to send, but it does not answer the questions that pertain to my situation.

The dealer from whom I purchased my used car did not provide any odometer certification - the booklet says he must, but doesn't tell me what to do when doesn't, I asked for the certification and was told that it wasn't required - even though his own invoice says it is required. I have no reason to believe that the dealer has tampered with the odometer.

Secondly, the car has been made from 2 wrecks - the front of one and the rear of another and a previous dealer (with whom I had no dealings) did the work and in the process, deliberately altered serial numbers. I understand that he will be prosecuted for this by the State of N.C.. This rebuilding was discovered by me after I had the car for more than a month and I brought it to the attention of the N.C. Department of Motor Vehicle and they found out who tampered with the numbers and when.

Now, my problem is that the title is now mashed as "Reconstructed" and has a serial number of the N.C. Dept Mtr Vehicles and certainly has less resale Value than if not a patched up job. Surely the time cars used didn't have precisely the same mileage.

Can I sue the firm that did the altering in November, 1973? I bought the car from someone else (another dealer) in November 1974.

Would appreciate your comments if possible for you to do soon. Please send a copy of the law as there is little point in my (Illegible Words) if I have no grounds for suit.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Michael P. Dyson