ID: nht76-5.57

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: United Rubber; Cork; Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of December 1, 1975, to the Federal Trade Commission, concerning the dates molded into tires manufactured by the Dayton Tire and Rubber Company, has been forwarded to this agency for further reply.

Motor Vehicle tires are required by @ 574.5 of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to be labeled with an identification number containing certain information. A copy of this regulation is enclosed for your convenience. The last three digits of this number indicate the week and year of manufacture of the tire, as follows: the final digit is the last digit of the year, and the preceding two digits represent the week within that year. The numbering of the weeks begins with "01" for the first full calendar week in each year. For example, "016" indicates that a tire was manufactured during the week beginning Sunday, January 4, 1976, and ending Saturday, January 10. While the precise labeling on the tires that you have described is not clear from your letter, it appears that some of the tires do not comply with this labeling requirement, because November 24 and December 1 were not in the same calendar week of 1975.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

YOURS TRULY,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Corres. No. 12022

Robert C. Yates President, Local 178 United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1975 requesting information regarding tire regulations. In 1966, the Commission issued the "Tire Labelling and Advertising Guides" which set standards for advertising and promotion of tires to the public. However, there are no provisions within the Guides regarding the stamping of curing dates. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Guides.

Since it is possible that the Department of Transportation has regulations on this issue, I have referred your letter to them for any additional information they can offer.

D. McCarty Thornton Attorney Division of Marketing Practices

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America December 1, 1975

Federal Trade Commission

I am writing to request information concerning acts by the Company I work for, The Dayton Tire and Rubber Company, Dayton, Ohio.

It has been brought to my attention that the Company is back dating tires from their actual curing dates. For example. mold set and dated on November 24, 1975, the tires are then cured on December 1, 1975, bearing the date of November 24, 1975.

I would like to know if there are any regulations covering this type of production on passenger and truck tires. Any information concerning this matter would be appricated.

Robert C. Yates President of Local # 178 URW, AFL, CIO, CLC

ID: nht76-5.58

DATE: 07/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Carideng

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telex of June 18, 1976, requesting information concerning the designation of an agent for service of process and the assignment of a tire identification number.

Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made. Such designation should be filed with the Office of Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, does not require the designation of an agent for service of process prior to the assignment of a tire identification number. We are, therefore, forwarding your code number. Your tire identification number is T4.

Although you have been assigned an identification number, you are not permitted by Federal law to offer tires for importation into the United States until you have properly designated an agent for service of process. If you decide for any reason not to offer your tires for importation, we request that you notify the agency so that your tire code number can be placed in our inactive file.

If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 18, 1976

TELEX MESSAGE FOR: U S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ATT. E. T. DRIVER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS.

DEAR SIRS,

WE NOW URGENTLY NEED TO HAVE OUR MOTORCYCLE (MOPED) TYRES AGREED FOR SALES IN THE USA. HOWEVER, FROM YOUR LETTER REF. N41-33 DD. MAY 6, 196EEE1976 WE UNDERSTAND THAT TO OBTAIN A TIRE IDENTIFICATION OR NUMBER WE SHOULD HAVE AN AGENT ESTABLISHED IN THE USA, WHILE THIS IS NOT THE CASE AND WE HAVE ONLY A COMMISSION AGENT TRAVELLING 3 OR 4 TIMES A YEAR THROUGH THE USA BUT LIVING IN EUROPE. PLSE LET US HAVE YOUR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS AND AT THE SAME TIME GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE ESTIMATED DELAY THAT IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION D. PONCELET RUBBERFACTORY CARIDENG LANAKEN - BELGIUM

ID: nht76-5.59

DATE: 11/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gans Tire Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 12, 1976, question whether the manufacturer recordkeeping requirements of @ 574.7 of NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 574) may be fulfilled by a tire importer by one or both of the following arrangements: the purchaser records of tires manufactured by company B abroad and imported by Gans would be maintained by company A; the purchaser records of tires manufactured by Company B abroad and imported by Gans would be compiled by Gans but maintained by company B.

Either of these arrangements is acceptable under the language of @ 574.7(b), which provides that "[each] tire manufacturer shall record and maintain or have recorded and maintained for him, the information specified. . . ." this language permits the designation of a person other than the tire manufacturer to maintain the required records. Despite this designation, of course, the ultimate responsibility for maintenance would lie with the importer that qualifies as the manufacturer in the situation you describe.

SINCERELY,

GANS TIRE CO., INC.

October 12, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

This letter will confirm my conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office. As I mentioned to Mr. Vinson, we, in the past years prior to the DOT requirement for truck tires, purchased tires from Company A in Europe and imported them into the United States. Since that time this company has been acquired by another European tire manufacturer, Company B. We have now made the following arrangements:

1. To purchase tires from the international office of Company A, located in the U.S.A., to import these tires into the United States. The tires, in fact, will be made up and certified by Company B, but Company A will, in fact, control and keep the records of registration for these tires.

2. We are also purchasing direct from Company B in Europe. We are making arrangements to send to Company B a list of the customers who purchase the tires along with the necessary serial numbers, etc. They, in fact, will have the responsibility of holding this information for purposes of part 574.

Will you please confirm that these two plans are acceptable for purposes of compliance to part 574? I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to receiving your approval in the handling of this matter.

Thank you in advance for your kindnesses.

David Gans, President

ID: nht76-5.6

DATE: 01/30/76

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

TO: Brenda Nolan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products has been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their "safety shell" child carrier as follows: a child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.

Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, regulates certain safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.

Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for the padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A "child proof" system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.

As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires that installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.

The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standard that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.

SINCERELY,

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

December 29, 1975

Brenda Nolan

Dear Ms. Nolan:

The Consumer Affairs Division of the California Attorney General's Office has forwarded a copy of your letter concerning a children's car seat manufactured by Peterson Baby Products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate children's car seats under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. However, it is our understanding that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation now has in effect safety regulations for children's restraint systems used in motor vehicles. The NHTSA Chief Counsel has informed us that NHTSA will issue in the near future an amendment to its existing standard for children's restraint systems (FMVSS #213).

Because of NHTSA's expertise in this matter, we have forwarded your letter to them for consideration and investigation of the safety problems described in your letter.

Michael A. Brown General Counsel

CC: OFC. OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA; OFC. OF THE ATTY. GENERAL

PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE PURCHASED TWO PETERSON SAFETY SHELLS, ONE IN DECEMBER 1974, THE OTHER IN APRIL 1975. THIS LETTER DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT'S FAILURES WHICH HAVE MADE THE SHELLS ALMOST UNUSABLE, AND ASKS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION ON YOUR PART.

OUR MAJOR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE TODDLER SYSTEM, WHICH OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLIMB OUT OF SINCE SHE WAS 9 1/2 MONTHS OLD. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS SHE SHOULD BE IN IT FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR. ALSO, THE CAR SEATBELT MUST BE STRAPPED SO TIGHTLY AROUND THE GUARD OF THE TODDLER SYSTEM, THAT IT TAKES A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER TO TIGHTEN IT OR SHE SIMPLY PUSHES IT OUT OF POSITION. THIS IS A FINGER PINCHER. . . AND PROBABLY NOT VERY SAFE. OUT OF NECESSITY SHE IS NOW IN THE CHILD SYSTEM, WITH THE CHILD'S HARNESS WHICH IS MUCH TOO LARGE, AND A FAILING PAD AND ALL.

OUR SECOND COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE PADS. THE SNAPS ON BOTH PADS HAVE PULLED OUT IN VARIOUS PLACES, ALLOWING THE PADS TO MOVE AROUND, PUTTING STRESS ON THE SLITS FOR THE HARNESS SYSTEM. THIS HAS RIPPED THE SLITS. ONE PAD WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN NINE MONTHS AND THE OTHER WILL BE SHORTLY IN SIX MONTHS. ANOTHER OBSERVATION: THERE WAS SKIMPING ON THE LENGTH OF THE PAD AND THE KIND OF FABRIC USED IS IMPROPER FOR THIS KIND OF THING. ALSO, OUR IN-LAW'S NEW SHELL LASTED THREE WEEKS UNTIL THE COVERING ON ONE WING SPLIT WIDE OPEN.

BECAUSE THESE SEATS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FOUR YEARS, WE FEEL PETERSON SHOULD REPLACE THE TWO PADS ON OUR SEATS. WE LOOK FOREWARD TO A PROMPT REPLY FROM YOU ON THESE REPLACEMENTS.

OUR THIRD COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE DIRECTIONS FOR FASTENING THE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP. THEY ARE INADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS THIS STRAP IS VERY EASILY LOSSENED TO CREATE LOTS OF SLACK, SIMPLY, BY PULLING THE END OF THE STRAP. THIS WE CONSIDER VERY SERIOUS ENCLOSED ARE OUR REVISED DIRECTIONS IN WHICH YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

OUR FOURTH COMPLAINT: THE HARNESS SYSTEMS ARE DIFFICULT TO ADJUST TO DIFFERENT THICKNESSES OF OUTER CLOTHING. WHILE WE'RE UNFORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A CLIMATE WHERE IT MAY BE 80 DEGREES ONE DAY AND 35 DEGREES THE NEXT, CAN'T THESE ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE EASIER? MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS HARD TO GET THE BABY OUT OF THE INFANT SYSTEM QUICKLY IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE SHELL. ALSO, THE CLASP ON THE CHILD'S HARNESS IS A (ILLEGIBLE WORDS). SAAB. WE PREFER THE VOLKSWAGEN. ONLY WE CAN'T FIT BOTH SEATS INTO THE BACK AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP STUD FOR RIGHT REAR POSITIONING.

UNTIL TWO MONTHS AGO WE WERE RELATIVELY PLEASED WITH THE TODDLER AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. EXCEPT FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE PAD AND AWKWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE HARNESS, THE CHILD'S SYSTEM IS OK. WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT THE TODDLER SYSTEM NOR MUCH ABOUT THE INFANT SYSTEM.

OUR CHILDREN ARE NEITHER OVERLY ACTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE, YET THE PADS LASTED ONLY NINE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS RESPECTIVELY. AGAIN, WE ASK FOR REPLACEMENT PADS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WE LOOK FOREWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU AND RESOLVING THIS MATTER.

SINCERELY,

BRENDA NOLAN

COPIES TO: CHILD WORLD, CHELMSFORD, MASS; CONSUMER REPORTS, MT. VERNON, N.Y.; CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIV., ATTY. GEN.'S OFC., BOSTON, MASS.

Our directions for the side restraint strap.

Seatbelt anchor

(Graphics omitted)

CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BOSTON, MASS.

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE HAVE JUST WRITTEN A LETTER TO PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS, P.O. BOX 3974, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 91605. WE THOUGH THAT OUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CAR SEAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU. THEREFORE WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF THAT LETTER.

BRENDA NOLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Peterson Baby Products

December 5, 1975

GENTLEMEN: The Consumer Protection Unit of the Attorney General's Office has received the enclosed complaint relating to your firm. We understand that there are always two sides to a problem, and we would appreciate your prompt review of this matter.

We do not represent the complainant. However, we analyze all complaints to determine whether grounds exist for legal action under California consumer protection laws. Your response to each of the factual allegations in the complaint will help us determine whether legal action on our part is warranted.

We would appreciate receiving your response within the next thirty days. We also request that you send a copy of your response to the complainant. Please feel free to attach any documents which you think are relevant in explaining your position. Naturally in sending you this complaint, we make no assumption to the truth of the allegations.

EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General

Consumer Protection Analyst

cc: CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

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