ID: nht72-6.41

DATE: 08/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Housing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 9 and July 21, 1972 to Mr. E. T. Driver requesting further clarification of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR 574) concerning the responsibility of vehicle manufacturers and dealers in cases where no agreement can be reached between the two as to the method of recording the required information.

Under the circumstances you describe it is the vehicle manufacturer who is ultimately responsible for maintaining the name and address of the purchaser of the vehicle and a record that will supply enough information concerning the tires to enable the manufacturer to conduct a defect notification if the tires are found to be defective.

ID: nht72-6.42

DATE: 08/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking, submitted July 30, 1971, to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Regulations (49 CFR Part 574). Your petition requests that Standard No. 109 be amended to provide for a special tire category for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires, of which the "Space Saver Spare" tire you manufacture is an example. You request specifically that requirements for these tires differ from conventional tires as follows: lower minimum breaking-energy values in the strength test (S4.2.2.4, Table II); modified minimum size factors for certain tire size designations which you list; elimination of the condition that the tire be mounted without lubricant for the bead unseating test (S4.2.2.3); and allowing the tire identification number to be placed on the lower sidewall (49 CFR 574.5). For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied insofar as it requests modifications to the strength and bead unseating requirements of Standard No. 109, and the requirements of Part 574. We make certain recommendations herein regarding your request for modification of the minimum size factors of Standard No. 109.

The basis for your request for lower breaking-energy values in the strength test is that the values you request represent a level of performance equal to that of a conventional tire having the same amount of tread remaining as a new folding sidewall-reduced tread tire. The NHTSA cannot accept this argument as a valid basis for specifying lower breaking-energy value requirements for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires The requirements specified for the strength test are considered to be necessary minimum requirements for all new passenger car tires. Consequently, persons who purchase new tires, regardless of their construction, are entitled to at least this level of performance, and not the level of performance represented by a used tire.

The NHTSA does not believe, similarly, that you have presented a sufficient basis for elimination of the condition, in the bead unseating test procedure, that the tire be mounted for the test without the use of lubricant. While the NHTSA concurs in the benefits of run-flat performance, which the "Space Saver Spare" appears to provide, we do not believe that this advantage outweighs the necessity that the tire conform to the bead unseating requirements when mounted without lubrication. The NHTSA believes the possibility that tires will be mounted without lubrication in the field is sufficiently great to warrant the retention of this condition in the standard's test procedure.

We also do not consider sufficient the justification you provide for your request that the identification number required pursuant to Part 574 be allowed to be placed on the lower sidewall of the tire. Your statement to the effect that no problems are presented if the number "wears off" ignores the fact that the number must be retained on the tire for purposes of identification should a defect notification or recall campaign be instituted.

With reference to your request for modification of the (Illegible Word) size factor for the tire size designations which you list, believe B. F. Goodrich should petition, in accordance with guidelines published October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), to amend the Appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 to provide that folding sidewall-reduced tread tires be added as a separate tire type, including new size designations and corresponding values for section width and minimum size factor that you consider appropriate.

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

ID: nht72-6.43

DATE: 01/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E.T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Crestview Service Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1972, regarding recordkeeping of tires manufactured before May 22, 1971.

Tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, are not subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Regulation Part 574.

Regulation Part 574 became effective May 22, 1971, for tires manufactured on and after that date.

ID: nht72-6.44

DATE: 05/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Service Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1972, in which you request clarification as to the application of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) to your members under various circumstances described therein.

Generally persons other than tire manufacturers who have obligations under the Tire I.D. regulations are motor vehicle manufacturers and tire distributors and dealers. A person adding tires to a vehicle of which he is either an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, intermediate manufacturer, or final-stage manufacturer, as those terms are defined in 49 CFR 574.10. Those persons adding tires as part of modifications to used vehicles will be tire dealers, and subject to the requirements of 574.8.

With respect to the three situations you list, in those cases where the tires have already been installed on the vehicle when your member receives it (Case #1), your member would not be adding tires to the vehicle and would not be responsible for compliance with the Tire I.D. requiremts In these cases where the tires are added or changed by an independent tire dealer, if the independent dealer is actually doing business with your member rather than with the owner of the vehicle, and if your member is an incomplet, intermediate, or final-stage manufacturer, he must comply with 574.10. If he does not fall within any of these categories he will be a tire dealer subject to 574.8. If the tire dealer is dealing independently with the owner of the vehicle, your member will not be the party adding tires to the vehicle, and will not be subject to the requirements. With regard to the situation where your member puts tires on a frame or vehicle as part of a package deal (Case #3), if he is either an incomplete vehicle, intermediate or final-stage manufacturer he will be required to comply with the requirements of 574.10. If he does not fall within these categories, he will be a tire dealer and subject to section 574.8.

Assuming your member must record the name of the first purchaser as a manufacturer or dealer, you have asked whether he may use the name of the dealer to whom he delivers the vehicle as the first purchaser, when that is the case, as he frequently does not know the name of the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale. You refer to our March 14, 1972, letter to you in which we stated that a dealer's name could be used in meeting the "Owner's List" requirement of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573) when the name of the dealer was the only name which the manufacturer had. For the purposes of the Tire I.D. requirements, the manufacturer must obtain and use the name of the actual purchaser for a purpose other than resale. It is not sufficient under this requirement for the name of the dealer to be used. Section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(f)), which became effective November 18, 1970. provides that. "Every manufacturer of motor vehicles or tires shall maintain records of the names and addresses of the first purchaser (other than a dealer or distributor) of motor vehicles or tires produced by that manufacturer." In our view this provision requires the manufacturer of a multi-stage vehicle who adds the tires to the vehicle to obtain the names of such purchasers, even if the names must be obtained from dealers. Our letter of March 14 should not be read to absolve your members who are such manufacturers from meeting this requirement. What that letter allows is simply that in those cases where manufacturers have not, at the time they must compile an owner list, obtained the names of first purchasers, they may use the name of the dealer and not be in violation of the "Owner's List" requirement. This may be done, however, only until they can obtain the actual first purchaser's name. We regret that this point was not made clear in our March 14 letter, and that letter is hereby modified in this regard.

Concerning your question as to the conditions under which automotive wholesalers and warehouse distributors must keep Tire Identification records, if the automotive wholesaler or warehouse distributor is not selling tires directly to the user of the vehicle he need only ensure that the dealer or distributor to whom he sells the tires has a means of recording the required information so that it may be forwarded to the tire manufacturer (section 574.8(c)). In the event the automotive wholesaler or warehouse distributor sells tires to a user, then he must record the information specified in @ 574.7(a) and forward that information to the tire manufacturer.

ID: nht72-6.45

DATE: 06/06/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: International Houseing Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge your letter of May 19, 1972, regarding tire identification and recordkeeping.

Regulation Part 574 requires a vehicle manufacturer to maintain a record of tires on each vehicle shipped to a dealer and requires that he maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser of the vehicle for a period of three years. The purpose, of course, is to enable him to locate tires in the event of a recall. The name and address of the purchaser is provided by the dealer. The manufacturer is not required by the regulation to record each identification number for each tire, but may do so by group or category. There is a strong possibility that all tires on one vehicle will be of the same brand and will have the same identification number. The manner in which a manufacturer chooses to maintain the tire records is optional and the dealer would be expected to cooperate in his system of recording data. It is primarily a matter of agreement between manufacturer and dealer.

In the event the original tires on a vehicle are changed by the dealer prior to sale, he must report the new tire identification numbers and the purchaser's name and address to the manufacturer of the tires sold with the vehicle.

We note that your letter refers to registration of serial number rather than identification number. It is the letter that is subject to the regulation.

We trust this information answers your questions.

ID: nht72-6.46

DATE: 06/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Super Mold Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your phone call of June 6, 1972. Under Part 574, the tire identification number may be placed on the side of the top cap area or may be branded into the tire in accordance with the regulation. If the top cap area is used, the number should be as close to the sidewall as is feasible so that the number will remain legible as long as possible. Seetthe enclosed amendment on this subject (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 9).

ID: nht72-6.47

DATE: 10/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Gislaved

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 21, 1972, in which you inquire about the use of the third grouping of characters in the tire identification number required by Regulation Part 574.

You are correct in your understanding that there has been no recent change in the regulation regarding the optional use of the third grouping for tire type (Illegible Word) purposes. The third grouping may be used by the manufacturer if he so desires to identify significant characteristics of the tire and he may use up to four symbols in the group. However, if the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner, the third grouping must be used to identify the brand name owner. The tire type code is not compulsory except to identify a brand name owner.

Apparently the organization that uses the enclosure accompanying your letter is making (Illegible Words) within its own operations of using a 10 character identification number even though the regulation does not make it mandatory. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to this practice.

We appreciate your concern for compliance with the regulation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht72-6.48

DATE: 12/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Chester H. Smith; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1972, forwarding the National Tire Dealers & Retreasers Association's (NTDRA) Resolution of October 2, 1972, regarding the Federal Regulation on Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

The idea of attaching a return card on each tire at the factory to be filled out and returned by the purchaser was given serious consideration during rule making but no practical method was known for attaching a card that would assure retention through delivery to the dealer. Also, the suggestion that the consumer fill out the record card gave no promise of return as far as we could determine from our studies. However, we believe a dealer can be relied upon to record the data in a matter of a few minutes at minimum cost. These factors prevent us from accepting the NTDRA proposal as a reasonable compromise unit would still maintain the needed public interest.

With respect to effectiveness, we believe that the pay-off potential of the regulation, though rather poor in the first year of operation, is continuing to show improvement as time goes on. Although we have no precise count, many tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, were in stock and were put on the market during the past 17-month period. As time goes on these pre-regulation tires will gradually disappear from the market and be replaced entirely by the "identified" tires. We would expect that the effectiveness of Part 574 would not reach its full potential until a 3-year period had elapsed.

You may be interested in the following data concerning tire recalls: No. of Tires Recalled NHTSA Voluntary 1970 160,899 28,823 1971 78,050 157,143 1972 (incomplete) 100,000 76,915 338,949 262,881 Grand Total 601,830

These statistics show that almost 45 percent of tire recalls have been initiated on a voluntary basis by the tire manufacturer, and that voluntary recalls during 1971 and 1972 appear to have increased considerably over 1970. Although we have no exact figures on percentage of returns, we take this as an indication that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's tire safety program is removing dangerous tires from the road and the system we are using is showing considerable success toward reaching ultimate objectives. We are very much encouraged in the trend of Part 574 toward effectiveness of recalls.

We want to assure you that although the rule making docket reflects exploration of many ideas concerning tire identification and recordkeeping, we are still receptive to any new proposal that would appear promising in improving the present system.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

United States Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

October 26, 1972

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Toms:

We enclose a copy of a Resolution adopted by the 52nd annual convention of the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

Could you inform us, please, of the consideration being given by your Administration to the NTDRA's proposal? Do you think their plan might represent a reasonable compromise between the public interest in tire safety and the obvious interest of tire dealers in lessening their burden of wholly uncompensated Federal paperwork?

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Chester H. Smith Staff Director - General Counsel

cc: Thomas J. McIntyre -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Regulation

October 16, 1972

Chester H. Smith -- Staff Director & General Counsel, Senate Small Business Committee

Dear Mr. Smith:

We believe the attached Resolution adopted at our recent Convention on Tire Identification and Record Keeping will be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; Philip P. Friedlander -- Director of Communications

enc.

RESOLUTION

52ND ANNUAL CONVENTION NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION INC. OCTOBER 2, 1972 WHEREAS the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association has received a number of complaints from its members on the difficulties of registering the name and address of each purchaser of tires as required by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation as well as the attendant costs for the retailer without recovery, and;

WHEREAS the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to provide a uniform form for such records in spite of requests by tire dealers and others in the industry;

WHEREAS some of the recalls that were conducted during nineteen hundred and seventy two have been for tires manufactured prior to the registration requirement of May of nineteen hundred and seventy one;

WHEREAS the burden on the retailer and consumer alike has not been offset by appropriate advantages to the consumer;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association in Annual Convention assembled this second day of October, nineteen hundred and seventy two, that this Association urges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to re-examine its current program which requires the seller to register the first purchaser of a new tire and retreaded tire and that it consider a voluntary system of registration by the tire purchaser utilizing an uniform form supplied by tire manufacturers and distributed at the time of sale for the consumer to fill out and mail back to a designated place rather than to leave the entire burden with the individual tire dealer.

ID: nht72-6.49

DATE: 12/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Edgewood Motorcycle Shop

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1972, asking if you have to maintain a record of the tires you sell and register or is it sufficient to mail the requested information to the tire manufacturer or the tire manufacturer's designee.

Under Part 574.8 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) a tire dealer is recorded to submit the required information to the tire manufacturer or his designee but is not required to keep a separate record of the tires sold.

ID: nht72-6.5

DATE: 06/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: FIAT AMBULANCE

Giuseppe Carretto, the Fiat lawyer, telephone me on June 14 to ask whether a Fiat 238 truck chassis to which an ambulance body had been mounted would be considered a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

I REPLIED THAT IT WOULD.