ID: nht76-5.60

DATE: 02/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: King Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1975, concerning tire registration numbers, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of this office.

Thank you for your suggestion that the tire identification number appear on both sidewalls of tires which are delivered already mounted on a vehicle. It is being reviewed by our technical staff, and we will advise you by letter of our decision in this matter.

In answer to your question concerning the types of vehicles covered by the term "motor vehicle," "motor vehicle" is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

YOURS TRULY,

KING COMPANY INC.

DATE 11-19-75

TO R. B. Dyson US Dept of Transportation National Highway Safety

Thank you for your letter N40-30. We are primarily in the travel trades retail business and have been send in the tire numbers on tires registration forms that the respective manufacture send to us. Some of there tire mumbers are hard to locate as they are stamped on the inside section of the trailer tire, I would like to see the numbers printed on both side of the tire and in a (Illegible Word) that would be more ledgible to use.

Also, do the numbers actually (Illegible Word) to be recorded, as I see the regulation state "tires for use on motor vehicles", and I wonder if travel trailers, compare, (Illegible Word) trailers etc apply. Would you please help answer these questions.

Thank you!

Roger R. King

ID: nht76-5.61

DATE: 07/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Vorys; Sater; Seymour and Pease

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1976, concerning 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record-keeping.

As we understand the situation, Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., ("Byers") has imported 988 motorcycles whose tires were manufactured by VEB REIFENKONBINAT ("VEB"), a corporation in the German Democratic Republic. VEB has to date failed to apply for a manufacturer's designation and to mark the tires supplied with the motorcycles in accordance with Part 574. Consequently, Byers wishes to apply for an identification mark on behalf of the manufacturer and itself carry out Part 574 marking requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines a manufacturer to include a person importing motor vehicles for resale. As a statutory manufacturer, the importer of record could become responsible for insuring compliance with Part 574. We understand that the importer of record is East-Europe Export, Inc., but that there is a serious question of East-Europe's continuation as a corporation and, consequently, the ability of the NHTSA to require East-Europe to satisfy the requirements of Part 574. Therefore, although not expressly permitted by the regulation, we would not object in this instance to Byers, as the distributor of the motorcycles, applying in its own name for a manufacturer's tire identification mark (so long as it is willing to accept the responsibility for carrying out the requirements of Part 574). Because of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, we would not permit Byers to apply for an identification mark, on behalf of VEB itself, without showing that VEB intended to fulfill the requirements of Part 574.

In any event, VEB must submit a designation of an agent for service of process as required by Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR 551.45.

ID: nht76-5.62

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Motocross Engineers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1976, concerning the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to certain off-road motorcycle tires that you plan to import.

"Motor vehicle" is defined in Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation does motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it not apply to tires that are not manufactured for use on motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that the vehicles for which the tires in question are designed are not motor vehicles. Therefore, unless these tires are also designed for use on other vehicles that do meet the statutory definition of "motor vehicle", they are not subject to any labeling requirements of the Department of Transportation.

YOURS TRULY,

February 6, 1976

Office of Chief Council, Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Yesterday I spoke at length with Mr. Mark Schwimmer of your office regarding our plans to import knobby motorcycle tires manufactured by Lien Shin Tire Co. in Taiwan. In my initial correspondence from Lien Shin, they noted their tires are approved by DOT and carry a UI marking. This was confirmed by Mr. Coleman in your Boston Office.

Before placing a purchase order and Letter of Credit on Lien Shin, I have undertaken an investigation to iron out all details that might incumber clearning the containers upon arrival. This attempt to avoid future storage charges has resulted in my confronting Section 574 - The Identification Code. I am therefore requesting from your Office a definition of what sidewall markings would be required on tires of this nature. What steps must I take to assure that the tires comply with DOT specifications?

I have enclosed a photograph of the tread pattern used in these off-road, dirt motorcycle tires. I wish to import these tires in sizes 4.00 - 18", 4.50-18", 4.75-18", 3.00-21". These motorcycle tires are designed with deep knobs for gripping dirt and mud when used on racing motorcycles in off-road riding and dirt track events, for which they are designed. Each tire bundle is marked "Not for Highway Use." The tires would be used as replacement tires on such motorcycles as Husqvarna, Maico, CZ, Bultaco, KTM, etc., which are usually imported without lights or other machine carries an inscribed plate stating that it does not conform to DOT highway specifications and is inscribed plate stating that it does not conform to DOT highway specifications and is designed for off-road riding only.

I would appreciate your definition of tire sidewall identification and code requirements for these shipments. I will convey your requirements to the manufacturer as part of my Purchase Order, making sure their product will comply before initiating a Letter Of Credit for the purchase. Thanking you for your assistance, I am

MOTORCROSS ENGINEERS, INC.

S.L. Smead

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.63

DATE: 07/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Road America Tire

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 19, 1976, letter concerning the responsibilities that you would have as an importer and distributor of Dunlop passenger car tires. I understand that the tires would, before importation, be certified by Dunlop as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and labeled with a tire identification number as required by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. This particular line of tires would at first be imported by Road America Tire but not by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York (Dunlop New York), the usual importer of Dunlop tires.

You have inquired about your responsibilities concerning "record keeping, recall, and testing", with respect to the tires that you would import. The term "manufacturer" is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.)(the Act), to be

any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. (emphasis added)

In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or regulations issued thereunder, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. Please note that @ 574.8 of Part 574 also establishes requirements applicable to Road America Tire as a distributor of the tires in question.

The above discussion applies to manufactuers' notification and remedy obligations set out in Section 151 through 160 of the Act and to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, among others. The Act does not specifically require any person to conduct tests of his products. Standard No. 109 establishes the performance tests which the NHTSA will conduct to determine conformity. A determination of nonconformity triggers the notification and remedy obligations regardless of the amount of testing the manufacturer has performed.

In conclusion, tires imported by Road America Tire would not be the responsibility of Dunlop New York. Conversely, tires imported by Dunlop New York would not be the responsibility of Road America Tire. While a factual issue might arise concerning which party actually imported a particular tire, such an issue would be resolved on the basis of information available in that particular case. You should note that, were the NHTSA to choose to proceed against Dunlop with respect to a tire imported by Road America Tire, the agency might serve administrative processes, notices, or orders on Dunlop New York. However, Dunlop New York would be served only in its capacity as the foreign Dunlop's designated agent for service of process pursuant to Section 110(e) of the Act, and not in its capacity as an importer.

Copies of the Act and Part 574 are enclosed for your convenience. You may rely on this letter in resolving any conflict that you might have with Dunlop New York.

YOURS TRULY,

road america tire

May 19, 1976

Mr. Schwimmer Office of the Chief Consol National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Thank you for taking time away from your busy schedule this morning to speak with us regarding our questions about D.O.T. regulations governing passenger car tires. As per your recommendation, we are putting into writing our various questions on the particular matters as follows:

1) What is our responsibility as an importer/distributor of a new type of Dunlop passenger car tire that is now D.O.T. marked and will not be imported by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York in the following areas:

a) record keeping

b) recall

c) testing

2) Will any conflict arise, as far as your department is concerned, in us handling this new special tire apart from the normal passenger car line as carried by Dunlop, New York. Dunlop New York, is claiming that all D.O.T. marked tires are their responsibility since they are the major importer of most all other passenger car tires.

3) What would be the ramifications of both Dunlop New York and ourselves importing this same special tire and what problems would arise in the area of record keeping and recall. Dunlop New York has informed us that they will not import this tire at the present time, but may do so in the far future.

Please feel free to call me at the above number should you require any further information concerning this matter. We would appreciate receiving your official opinion in writing, so that we may resolve any conflict with Dunlop New York and we would also appreciate your approval in using your written opinion in this manner, as well. Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter.

Ronald E. Moser

ID: nht76-5.64

DATE: 05/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Wiggins; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1976, concerning the Tire identification and Recordkeeping Requirements administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments concerning this program and your obvious efforts to familiarize yourself with the way it is administered. It is clear from your letter that you share my view that these requirements should be made as effective and efficient as possible, thereby increasing consumer safety while lessening the burden on tire dealers.

As you are aware, the Congress in 1970 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of purchasers so that they could be notified of any defect. This step was taken only after attempts by manufacturers and the NHTSA to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. As you point out, Congressional action would be necessary to eliminate the program.

In your letter, you address four areas in which you believe the tire registration program is either ineffective or inefficient. I would like to discuss each one individually to ensure that your questions are answered comprehensively.

The first question you raise deals with the cost your constituent, a small tire dealer, is obligated to incur to satisfy the requirements of the program. In order to understand fully the cost involved, it would be useful to consider precisely what is required by the regulation.

1. A dealer must fill out a tire identification form supplied by the manufacturer for each purchase. This requires entering the name and address of the purchaser, the tire identification number which appears on the tire(s), and the company's name and address or number on the form. Only several minutes are required to complete the form.

2. Once a month, the dealer must send the forms to the manufacturer of the tires.

We are unable to understand how the regulation appreciably increases a small businessman's cost of doing business. It is our view that additional staff is not necessary to carry out the registration of tires, and we have no information which would suggest the contrary.

The situation would be somewhat more complex if your constituent sold tires manufactured by more than one firm, as each manufacturer supplies its own form which must, of course, be returned to the appropriate manufacturer. In this case, however, we have required that manufacturers supply to the dealers upon request a form with a standardized format to simplify completion.

The second matter you raise is the failure of some dealers to complete the registration forms. I share with you a concern that despite provision for substantial penalties, some dealers insist on breaking the law. It had been the policy of the NHTSA to delay strict enforcement of the regulation in the belief that dealer unfamiliarity with the regulation might be the cause of the poor response and that the situation would improve. In view of the continued unsatisfactory rate of compliance, the NHTSA has advised me that it will increase enforcement action to eliminate competitive advantage based on noncompliance.

Another issue raised in your letter is the cost of administering the regulation as compared to its benefit. I have queried the NHTSA as to their estimate of this cost and have been advised that the one dollar figure which you cited in your letter relates to all costs of both the manufacturer and dealer to register and maintain records for all four tires on a vehicle rather than a single tire. I am sorry for any confusion which might have arisen. Even utilizing a higher cost figure, however, it is NHTSA's view, in which I concur, that the expense of tire registration is not exorbitant in terms of helping to insure that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As I am sure you realize, the purpose of any insurance program, be it fire insurance for the home or health insurance for the individual, is to protect all insured individuals against the catastrophic loss that only some of the insured individuals will actually experience.

It is of course difficult to associate a dollar figure with the potential damage which could be caused by a defective tire. In this regard, however, you may be interested in knowing that a Federal jury in Florida last year returned a $ 2,300,000 judgment against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.

You also suggest in your letter that only 25,000 tires were recalled in 1974. Our records, however, indicate that 1,098,000 tires were recalled in 1974 in 31 recall campaigns. Further, 2,526,480 tires have been recalled in the 119 recall campaigns initiated since the inception of the program. It is my view that the program should continue in light of the defect potential inherent in the sale of 200,000,000 tires annually.

In addition to planning increased enforcement, the NHTSA is evaluating the consumer response rate in tire defect notification campaigns to determine whether it can be improved and whether the low response rate is due in large part to tires no longer being in the hands of the initial purchaser. I have already requested the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to conduct a broad study of the safety defect and recall problem, which includes a consideration of the adequacy of the tire recall effort. Based on these evaluations, the NHTSA should be able to determine if legislative action is necessary.

Let me assure you I appreciate your personal interest in this matter.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

March 9, 1976

The Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. Secretary of the Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Recently a constituent of mine who sells motor vehicle tires at retail took time to explain to me the "Tire Identification and Recordkeeping" program which you administer and which directly affects him.

I hadn't heard of such a program, but have since learned that Section 1402(f) of Title 15 of the United States Code requires that manufacturers of tires maintain a record of names and addresses of the purchasers of their products. Regulations implementing the requirement are in Section 574 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The obvious purpose of the law is to make efficient the recall of defective tires.

My constituent informed me that the requirements of this program are widely ignored by retail tire dealers who are the conduit of the purchasers' identity to the manufacturers. He complains that the program costs him money, and being a small businessman, he must pass this cost onto his customers. His competitors who ignore the requirements don't have the cost and so gain a competitive edge. Furthermore, he believes the program is not worth the effort to begin with; due to the fact that only a miniscule percentage of those notified they have a defective tire respond to the recall notice.

On January 21, 1976, Mr. Elwood Driver, an employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came to my office with a number of his associates, to explain the program to me. Mr. Driver made it clear that DOT plays virtually no role in overseeing the registration program. He had no information to offer on how efficiently the program operated, nor how many defective tires were removed from motor vehicles because of it. Subsequent to the meeting he contacted several manufacturers, and informed me by letter that they had informed him that 90% of the manufacturer owned tire dealers and 40-50% of the independent dealers complied with the program. Those manufacturers stated that only 30% of the tire owners notified that they owned a potentially defective tire responded to the recall notice.

I was informed by Mr. Driver that more than 200 million tires are sold each year and that a conservative price for the paperwork required to properly "register" a single tire is one dollar. If 50% of the dealers are complying with the registration program, that represents a pass through to the American consumer of $ 100 million.

I have been informed from industry sources that approximately 25,000 tires were recalled in 1974 as being potentially defective. Only a certain percentage of owners of those tires were notified because only a percentage of the dealers comply with the program. However, if compliance was 100% and all the purchasers were notified, only 30% would respond. That means this $ 100 million program optimally would result in 7,500 potentially defective tires being removed from automobiles. (Parenthetically, if all the tires manufactured were properly registered this would be a $ 200 million program.)

I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you could review this program to determine whether in your opinion it should be continued. Without question, it doesn't work efficiently or effectively. Without question, it is enormously expensive to the American consumer. On the other hand, if defective new tires pose a serious national threat, then this program should be made to operate efficiently. It is my opinion, that the appropriate Committees would seriously consider any constructive recommendations in this regard that you care to offer.

CHARLES E. WIGGINS Member of Congress

cc: HON. HARLEY O. STAGGERS;

HON. SAMUEL L. DEVINE;

HON. JOHN E. MOSS;

HON. JAMES COLLINS;

HON. FRED B. ROONEY;

HON. JOE SKUBITZ

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

ID: nht76-5.66

DATE: 03/18/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR J. B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Richard Nolan; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you ask six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:

1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registration information for three years. (49 CFR 574.7(d)).

2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tire manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.

3. The number of persons employed by industry to process this information has not been reported, but the filling systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $ 2.5C per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.

4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable to the tire registration and recordkeeping procedure except (Illegible Word) in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $ 34,000 annually.

5. The NHTSA has undertaken no proscution of dealers or manufacturers for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assesed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.

6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation. However, as with all our standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amend the regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on positions within 120 days.

At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of "Safety Defects and Recalls" requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

February 17, 1976

Congressional Liaison Department of Transportation

Would you please provide me with background information regarding the registration of tire serial numbers. I am especially interested in:

1. How long is this information kept on file?

2. How often has the Department of Transportation used this information to trace and notify individuals of defective tires?

3. Approximately how many persons are involved in processing this information?

4. What is the approximate cost of this procedure to the federal government?

5. How often have violators of this regulation been prosecuted?

6. Does the Department foresee any revision of this regulation in the near future?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Richard Nolan Member of Congress

ID: nht76-5.67

DATE: 02/13/76

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

TO: Charles E. Wiggins; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On January 21, 1976, Mr. Elwood Driver, Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of Crash Avoidance, presented a briefing at your office on the subject of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, Regulation Part 574. During this presentation, you asked two questions that needed further investigation. These questions and our responses are elaborated below:

1. What is the budget for the NHTSA? How is the budget broken down to the men actually working on the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping and how much does it cost NHTSA to administer?

Response:

In your office an organization chart of the NHTSA down to the Tire Division was presented. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of this chart. We offer the following budget information, based on FY 1976.

Dollars Unit (000) Total NHTSA $ 184,720 Total Motor Vehicle Programs 10,345 Total Office of Crash Avoidance 1,100 Total Tire Division 250 Total Cost to NHTSA to administer Tire Identification and Recordkeeping 33.5

2. There is some question as to the effectiveness of the recall campaigns. Therefore, what percent of the tires are being registered by the tire manufacturers? Once a tire manufacturer sends out a recall notification, how many consumers respond to the notification?

Response:

The NHTSA contacted several major and minor tire manufacturers for this information. They indicated that at the company-owned stores, they have approximately 90 percent registration. From the tire dealerships, they have approximately 40 to 50 percent. Once the recall notification has been sent out by the respective tire manufacturers, approximately 30 percent of the consumers respond for action.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. E. Driver at 426-1741.

SINCERELY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Memorandum

SUBJECT: Meeting

FROM: Attorney Advisor

TO: Docket Red book Part 574.8

On August 16, 1976, in RM 5219 at 10:30 am, I met with Andy Pazahanick, Commission on Federal Paperwork. Those present were Mr. Pazahanick and I

Discussion Mr. Pazahanick asked if NHTSA considered Sec's authority under S158(b) of the Vehicle Safety Act as (Illegible Words) regard to Rops for tire dealer recordkeeping. I said yes.

He asked for the name of a person, in OSE who enforces Part 574 - I gave him Gene Taskinis' name & Rt.

He asked if a truck retread sts existed - I said no

Thomas W. Herlihy

ID: nht76-5.68

DATE: 12/28/76

FROM: CHARLES A. BAKER FOR E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: Tucker; Gray and Thigpen

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1976, requesting data on the Gateway Gumbo Wide Mudder tire involved in an automobile accident that you are investigating.

From your correspondence, you indicate that the tire was manufactured by the Denman Rubber Company and that Dunlap Kyle of Batesville, Mississippi owns the engineering specifications or blueprints. As this statement suggests a variation from usual tire industry practice, we did some investigating of our records. Our records indicate that there is a retreading plant operated by Dunlap and Kyle Company, P. O. Box 689, Batesville, Mississippi, for the retreading of light truck-type tires. Therefore, before we can answer your letter, we need some additional information.

Please forward to us the tire identification number of the tire as this will help determine if, in fact, this is a retreaded tire. This number will be located near the symbol DOT, and if it is a retreaded tire, should be located near the shoulder of the tire and not near the bead.

SINCERELY,

TUCKER, GRAY AND THIGPEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW

October 4, 1976 U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am investigating an automobile accident, the cause of which has been attributed to the failure of the following described tire:

Gateway -- Gumbo Wide Mudder

12-15LT

6 Ply Rating

4 Ply Nylon Cord

Tubeless

Load Range C

Max. Load 2,850 pounds at

Max. inflation 42 P.S.I Cold

It is my understanding that this tire is manufactured by Denman Tire Company and that the engineering specifications or blueprings are owned by Dunlap Kyle of Batesville, Mississippi.

Please send me copies of any and all information you have concerning this tire or any information applicable to this tire concerning standards, specifications, strength and endurance tests. I am particularly concerned with the sidewall and bead construction specifications and standards.

Thank you.

William H. Tucker

ID: nht76-5.69

DATE: 12/03/76

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

TO: Shughart; Thomson and Kilroy

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your October 20, 1976, letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, has been referred to this office for reply.

You request data concerning the 10.00-02 "Inland Deep Drive 300," that was manufactured by the Mansfield Tire and Rubber Company, Mansfield, Ohio. Tire Identification Number WLZJAVN 503.

We have enclosed all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for:

* New Pneumatic Tires, Passenger Cars, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109

* New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119

* Part 574 - Tire Identification and Recordkeeping

* Tire Code Numbers Assigned New Tire Manufacturers.

* Tire Size Codes

The tire identification number stated in your letter can be explained by the use of the above data.

"WL" - is the plant code for the Mansfield, Ohio plant.

"ZJ" - is the tire size code for the 10.00-20 tire size designation.

"AVN" - is an internal code for Mansfield.

"503" - means the tire was cured the 50th week of 1973.

You also request design and construction information. We do not have this type of information because it is proprietary. Also enclosed are copies of tire "Care and Service of Bias and Radial Ply Truck Tires."

We hope the above has been of some help to you.

SHUGHART, THOMSON & KUROY

October 20, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Re: Commercial Truck Tires

Our office is investigating an accident involving the blowout of a commercial truck tire known as the "Inland Deep Drive 300" size 10.00 x 20 tube type 13 ply rating with serial No. WL2JAVN503 manufactured by the Mansfield Tire and Rubber Company, Mansfield, Ohio. Please advise us if this particular tire or series of tires has been assigned a Department of Transportation number and if so, please advise us of the number.

We would also appreciate copies of any documents, standards, regulations, and procedures which you have on this tire including its design, construction, and manufacture. We would also appreciate copies of any documents, standards, and regulations or procedures pertaining to the design, construction, and manufacture of commercial truck tires in general.

Naturally, we are willing to pay a reasonable charge for providing the copies requested. If there is such a charge, please forward your statement for services along with the requested information and we will arrange for the appropriate payment of same.

REX R. REDHAIR