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

ID: nht76-5.7

DATE: 12/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1976, in which you ask whether emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must meet the requirements of the standard.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exits required in S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exits in Standard No. 217. All other emergency exits installed in school buses must comply with the requirements for emergency exits in buses other than school buses. These requirements are detailed in Standard No. 217.

In your letter, you ask specifically whether S5.2.3.1(b), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.3, S5.4.1, S5.4.2.1(b), or S5.5.3 apply to a side emergency door in a school bus that already complies with S5.2.3.1(a) of the standard. The NHTSA concludes that this door would be required to comply with S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.4.1 of the standard.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

November 15, 1976

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, as applied to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. In the case of a school bus equipped with a side emergency door, in addition to a rear emergency door furnished in compliance with the requirements of Sections S5.2.3.1(a), S5.3.3, S5.4.2.1(a) and S5.5.3, which if any of the following requirements must the side door comply with:

S5.2.3.1(b), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.3, S5.4.1, S5.4.2.1(b) or S5.5.3?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: nht76-5.70

DATE: 07/01/76 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Roy A. Taylor; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1976, forwarding a plea from Mr. Ralph O. Howard, Executive Vice President of the North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, for help in changing Public Law 91-265, HR 10105, that would permit voluntary registration of tires. The law which became effective May 22, 1971, amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to require tire manufacturers, including retreaders, to maintain records of the names and addresses of first purchasers. The law also authorized the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe procedures to be followed by distributors and dealers to assist manufacturers in securing the required information. In order to implement the law, our Regulation Part 574 (copy enclosed) specifies that tire dealers shall record the purchaser's name and address at time of sale.

The purpose of tire registration is to enable manufacturers to notify consumers in the event of defective or nonconforming tires. The Congress took steps in amending the Safety Act only after attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. Congressional action would again be necessary to change the law as Mr. Howard's letter requests.

To provide additional orientation pertinent to this subject, we are enclosing a copy of Secretary Coleman's recent letter to the Honorable C. E. Wiggins.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. WASHINGTON, D.C.

May 21, 1976

Mr. Ernest R. Warner, Jr. Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 7th St., S. W. Washing, D. C. 20590

The attached communication is submitted for your consideration, and to ask that the request made therein be complied with, if possible.

If you will advise me of your action in this matter and have the letter returned to me with your reply, I will appreciate it. Very truly yours, Roy A. Taylor M.C.

11th North Carolina District.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

May 21, 1976

Ralph O. Howard Excutive Vice President North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc.

Dear Ralph:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 14, 1976, containing the resolution passed by your Association in opposition to the Mandatory Tire Registration requirements. I am pleased to have the benefit of your views on this subject and in an effort to be of assistance I am today contacting the appropriate authorities of the Department of Transportation for any comments or information which could be supplied on this situation. As soon as any reply is received I will be back in contact with you.

Many thanks for sending us a copy of the 1975 Membership Directory of the Carolina Society of Association Executives. Also, both Evelyn and I and Mrs. Bobrowski and her husband enjoyed being with you for the congressional dinner.

With many good wishes.

Roy A. Taylor Member of Congress

Ralph O. Howard Executive Vice President

May 14, 1976

Dear Roy:

Because tire dealers are perplexed by a law (HR 10105, signed by the President May 25, 1970) which they do not feel is necessary the following resolution to relieve the burden of non-compliance is respectfully submitted to you for your assistance. Your efforts to change this law so that the customers can register tires if they so choose rather than requiring the tire dealer to make the registration will be greatly appreciated.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING MANDATORY TIRE REGISTRATION

"Whereas, the costs of recording, reporting, maintaining tire ales to the replacement tire market have compounded the economic problems of inflation, and been aggravating to tire customers and to tire dealers; and,

"Whereas, major relief has been proposed by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association just by changing the law to make tire registration voluntary,

"Now, therefore, we commend our North Carolina Congressional delegation to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the purpose of the law on Tire Registration and Record Keeping would be just as well served if mandatory provisions were changed to voluntary.

"This resolution approved by the membership of the North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association at its annual convention on March 6, 1976."

Ralph O. Howard

ID: nht76-5.71

DATE: 01/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert J. Geurink

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1975, to the Department concerning "general policies on recalls and any rules you may have on them."

From September 9, 1966, when the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted, until December 27, 1974, a manufacturer was required to notify purchasers of the existence of a safety-related defect or a non-compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, but there was no legal requirement to recall and repair the product. To implement the notification requirement, this agency adopted a regulation, 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. It also adopted 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, which requires a manufacturer to report to us periodically on notification campaigns.

Effective December 27, 1974, the Act was amended (Section 151 and following sections) to require mandatory notification, and remedy. We have proposed a new Part 577 to implement the new requirements. The public comments on the proposal are still being evaluated and the final rule has not been issued. I enclose copies of the Act, Part 573, Part 577, and proposed Part 577 for your information, and will be happy to answer any questions you have concerning them.

To address your specific concerns: the fact that a product fails one of our tests does not per se establish a failure to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the usual case the manufacturer is afforded an informal opportunity to present its views regarding the test failure. Errors in testing or test machines may be brought to our attention which have the effect of negating the test results. Or the manufacturer may be convinced of its noncompliance and voluntarily announce a notification/recall campaign. Or the manufacturer may be directed by this agency to furnish notification after a public hearing on the matter. The agency in the latter circumstance will issue its own press release announcing the recall. Notification must be made "within a reasonable time" after a determination of noncompliance or safety-related defect (Sec. 153(b)). If that determination is made by the government, it may prescribe a time period that it regards as reasonable.

There is no "recent" Goodyear Tire recall of 12,500 tires as you state, though the company did recall 12,602 tires in January 1973. Without knowing the size and type of the tires you are concerned about I cannot comment further.

I am returning your stamps.

YOURS TRULY,

Dec. 29, 1975

DEAR SIR -- Have you made a formal statement or drawn up any regulations regarding recalls?

For instance, must a company announce a recall of a product that fails your tests? Or do you announce it? When are letters sent to buyers?

Goodyear Tire recalled 12,500 tires recently and I wondered about the circumstances. Mainly, though, I'm interested in your general policies on recalls and any rules you may have on them.

I am enclosing return postage for a prompt reply.

Robert J. Geurink

ID: nht76-5.72

DATE: 05/26/76

FROM: RONALD W. COOKE

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/75 EST, FROM ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA TO RONALD W. COOKE, N41-42, OPINION FILE, MVSS 301

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregory:

I am writing to you for some clarification on Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 (part 571; s 301-75). This standard spells out original equipment manufacture's responsibilities for designing automobiles against fuel spillage after crash tests. This implicitely means that manufactures of gas caps for OEM customers are required to provide gas caps which conform to the roll-over requirements.

My question is, do the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards in any way impose requirements on parts manufacturers who make gas caps for after-market retail outlets to market caps which meet the OEM roll-over specifications?

For any company to volentarily follow the practice of meeting the roll-over specifications when others do not, self-imposes a severe marketing penalty because of the additional large number of caps which are needed for complete market coverage. This poses warehouse customer inventory stocking problems. Since some companies are using one cap for the OEM which meets roll-over requirements, and a different cap for the after-market at a decided competative advantage, it is imperative to us that this question of applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard be answered

I await your early reply.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht76-5.73

DATE: 02/10/76

FROM: JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TO: S. L. TERRY -- VICE PRESIDENT PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1/22/76 FROM S. L. TERRY -- CHRYSLER CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: Dear Mr. Terry:

This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1976, in which you discussed Chrysler's position with respect to the recently proposed amendment of Standard No. 105-75 that would make a low brake fluid level indicator optional instead of mandatory. You asked that we provide assurance that if the proposal is not adopted, the existing requirement for the indicator will be delayed, in recognition of the fact that manufacturers have passed the latest point at which money must be committed for engineering and tooling the indicator for September production.

I will hereby provide that assurance. We recognize that if manufacturers do not delay their financial commitment past the usual period for preparation to meet a requirement, when the agency proposes to delete the requirement, the money is likely to be wasted even if the agency proceeds as proposed. We expect manufacturers to hold off their commitment of tooling and other expenses for a requirement that we have proposed to delete, and if we should decide not to go ahead with the proposal, we will take the required leadtime into account in resetting the effective date.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-5.74

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: S. L. TERRY -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION VICE PRESIDENT-PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA DOCKET SECTION

TITLE: DOCKET 70-27; NOTICE 17 NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT MVSS 105-75, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO A LETTER DATED 2/10/76 FROM JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA TO S. L. TERRY PRESIDENT PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CHRYSLER CORPORATION; N40-30; 70-27-N17-004-A

TEXT: Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation is very pleased by the direction indicated in the recent notice to amend MVSS 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, that would permit either a gross loss of pressure indicator (GLPI) or a low brake fluid level indicator (BFLI) in satisfaction of the hydraulic failure indicator requirements of 85 3.1. We strongly support that proposed amendment. In our opinion adoption of the amendment will serve the best interest of the motoring public and will not adversely affect motor vehicle safety.

As Mr. Robert Sornson of my office discussed with Mr. Richard Dyson, your Assistant Chief Counsel, we recognize that it may have been necessary for you to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act since a substantive change in the standard is being proposed. However, the procedural delay in finalizing the change in the standard because of the rulemaking process will create a substantial hardship for Chrysler Corporation and probably for the rest of the industry. Since the notice did not cancel or delay the current requirements in the standard, we now find it necessary to continue to engineer and tool a fluid level indicator device in order to be certain that we will be able to build and sell cars conforming to the present standard after 9-1-76 in the event this proposal is not adopted. To insure against this possibility Chrysler Corporation will be spending approximately $ 150,000 per month for engineering and tooling of a fluid level indicator with a total program cost in excess of $ 600,000. In the event this proposed rulemaking is adopted most of the cost and manpower that will be expended on this program could be saved. However, we are naturally reluctant to stop work on this program on the basis of the new rulemaking where the consequences of another reversal could prevent us from building(Illegible Word)

We appreciate that NHTSA understands our problem and is willing to consider an approach that will allow manufacturers to keep their options open during the rulemaking process without incurring unnecessary and wasteful spending of manpower and money. As discussed with Mr. Dyson an acceptable method to do this would be for NHTSA to provide written assurance that the requirements of the current standard for a fluid level indicator, effective 9-1-76, will be delayed in the event that the proposed amendment is not adopted. In such an event we estimate that we would require 8 months lead time after the decision is published in order for us to reinstitute our tooling and engineering program and to get the necessary volume production required to equip the vehicles we manufacture with low brake fluid indicators.

In view of the time constraints involved we would appreciate written confirmation as soon as possible indicating that NHTSA will follow the procedure outlined above in the event MVSS 105-75 is not amended as proposed.

Sincerely,