ID: 77-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cooper

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, question whether your client, a retail tire dealer, would be in violation of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if he were to sell tires which do not contain an identification number as required by the NHTSA.

Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 CFR 571.109, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, requires passenger car tires to be labelled in accordance with Part 574. The absence of an identification number means that the tire is not in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 109. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides in part that no person shall sell any item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in conformity with applicable standards. Since your client would be selling nonconforming tires, he would be in violation of our Act and, therefore, subject to the penalties imposed thereunder. Section 109(a) of the Act establishes a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the Act, not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

SINCERELY,

PETER COOPER ATTORNEY AT LAW

March 1, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In connection with an inquiry from a client of mine, I have studied the 1975 regulation with reference to the requirement that all tires sold must have identification numbers thereon. My client is a retail tire dealer and tells me he has an opportunity to buy a lot of tires on which the identification numbers have been removed. I am told that these tires were bought for export but by reason of some restriction, the owner of said tires is unable to export them and is trying to sell them to my client.

The regulation seems to impose a penalty on manufacturers, or possibly others who sell tires on which the numbers have been removed.

It is my desire to inform my client that the regulations must be complied with but I am not clear as to whether the penalty imposed by the regulation would apply to a retail dealer.

I would appreciate it if you would advise me whether or not my client would be in violation of the regulation and subject to penalties if he buys the tires and then sells them at retail to his customers.

Peter Cooper

ID: 77-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, preempts the parking brake requirements specified in New York's school bus brake system regulations.

Safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective April 1, 1977, for school buses and establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems on these vehicles. The standard includes a static test requirement for parking brake systems (grade-holding capability) and a dynamic test requirement for service brake systems (emergency stopping capability). The New York brake system regulations include a static test requirement and also a dynamic test requirement for parking brake systems. You ask whether Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of New York's dynamic test requirement for parking brakes.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivisions of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 includes requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. It is the agency's opinion, therefore, that Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of the nonidentical aspects of New York's school bus parking brake requirements.

However, the second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not preempt governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use if such requirements impose a higher standard of performance. Thus, the State of New York may specify these additional parking brake requirements for public school buses. The second sentence of @ 103(d) does not permit governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all aspects of Standard No. 105-75. A school bus manufacturer, therefore, would have to meet the force requirements specified in Standard No. 105-75 for engagement of the parking brake, even for school buses intended for New York's own use.

ID: 77-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. T. Schellhase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a groove is cut around the tire and a white compound is inserted into the groove.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

SINCERELY,

February 23, 1977

David T. Schellhase

This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1977, concerning the manufacturing of tires.

I have forwarded your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of this Department, which has regulatory jurisdiction over highway safety matters, including the establishment of safety standards, enforcement of standards, and the investigation of apparent defects in motor vehicles or automobile components.

You will hear from NHTSA directly.

(Miss) Antonia P. Uccello Director Office of Consumer Affairs

Feb. 17, 1977

Dear Sirs,

I have been refered to your office by the Highway Patrol. My question is this. I have been offered a business opportunity which consists of servicing car dealers and making whitewall tires out of existing blackwall tires on both new and used cars. This is done by a machine which cut a grove into the sidewall of the tire and then a white compound is flowed into the grove. My insurance agent told me that because of the cutting of the tire he could not write me business insurance. Is the alteration of tires like I have explained illegal, as I myself question weather the process may cause tire failure or a blow out. I would certainly appreciate, any information you could offer. Thank you!

David T. Schellhase

ID: 77-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1977, asking two questions about the use of strobe lamps on school buses.

Your first question is whether it is "legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?" The answer is yes provided such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887 "School Bus Red Signal Lamps."

You also reference "certification from our vendor . . . that his system meets FMVSS if installed according to his instructions." You have asked if this letter from your vendor is "adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?" In an earlier opinion letter on this subject (to Yankee Metal Products Corporation of April 12, 1976) we opined that an ETL test report submitted by the company plus an opinion by a professional engineer indicating compliance of a strobe lamp design with SAE J887 provided a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Since you did not enclose the letter from your vendor we cannot comment upon it. However the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a manufacturer exercise due care in insuring that its certification is not false and misleading in a material respect, and you should exercise the same care in this instance that you do with respect to insuring compliance of other items of lighting devices with which your buses are equipped.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 29, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

REFERENCE: 1. New Jersey Register, January 6, 1977

2. Letter, Donald J. Sumple to Mr. Donald Peck dated 3-25-77

"On December 1, 1976, Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of Education and Secretary to the Board of Education, pursuant to authority of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-21 and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted a new rule, to be cited as N.J.A.C. 6:21-19.1, concerning school bus warning lamps (strobe), substantially as proposed in the Notice published October 7, 1976, at 8 N.J.R. 454(a), but with subsequent, substantive changes not detrimental to the public, in the opinion of the Department of Education.

This rule is mandated for school buses manufactured May 1, 1977, and thereafter. This rule is permissive for school buses manufactured prior to May 1, 1977."

The above quote from reference 1 indicates that strobe type warning lamps are required on New Jersey school buses manufactured after May 1, 1977.

We have worked with several vendors to get a system to meet both the New Jersey requirements and FMVSS 108. We have no test facility of our own to determine compliance of such a system with FMVSS 108 and, furthermore, understand that there is some ambiguity of FMVSS 108 with regard to strobe lamps.

We have received certification from our vendor, reference 2, that his system meets FMVSS 108 if installed according to his instructions.

We have these questions:

1. Is it legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?

2. If so, is reference 2 adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?

Your early response is needed so that we can adequately meet May 1 production requirements for New Jersey.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

C: DON PECK; JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT

ID: 77-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request of March 28, 1977, for clarification of the language of S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you ask whether the long side of a rectangular roof exit is required to be parallel to the center line of a bus.

S5.4.1 requires that an exit provide "an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches." Further, S5.2.1 of the standard states that a roof exit shall meet these requirements when the bus is overturned on either side. The requirement that the major axis be kept horizontal while the bus is on its side means that the major axis, and therefore the long side of the rectangular roof exit, would be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Irene Glessner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 21, 1977, letter asking whether a tire dealer is required to record the serial numbers of the tires he sells.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates regulations pertaining to tires. One of these regulations, Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tire dealers and distributors to obtain information when the tire is sold and to forward that information to the tire manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of this regulation for your information. In @ 574.7 of the regulation you will find the exact information for which a tire dealer is responsible.

A tire dealer would not be responsible for the ultimate recall of tires. The information which a dealer submits to a manufacturer enables the manufacturer to undertake recalls. Failure to record and submit the information to a manufacturer would be a violation of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1397). Each violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $ 1,000 up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of violations (15 U.S.C. 1398).

SINCERELY,

March 21, 1977

The Chairman National Transportation Safety Board

Dear Sir:

I am very much interested in finding out about the law (if there is one) that requires a tire dealer to record the serial numbers of the tires that he sells.

If I am not writing to the correct government agency, will you please tell me where to direct my inquiry?

I want to find out if there is a specific penalty or fine that can be levied against a tire dealer if he has not recorded the serial numbers of tires he sells, and at a later time there is some conflict or a recall pertaining to the sale of those tires.

Thank you for your assistance.

Irene Glessner

ID: 77-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Commission on Federal Paperwork, Frank Horton - Chairman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 9, 1977, letter requesting a copy of the report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to the Senate Commerce Committee's inquiries concerning the recordkeeping requirements of the tire registration program. I too am interested in reducing the burden upon the public occasioned by unnecessary paperwork. In accordance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA report.

Regarding your comments concerning the viability of a voluntary tire registration technique to replace the present registration program, you should note that the NHTSA has considered the possibility of a voluntary registration procedure similar to the warranty card procedure utilized by appliance manufacturers. Through informal inquiries of appliance manufacturers, the agency discovered that return of warranty cards averages about 50 percent in the case of expensive appliances and falls as low as 10 percent in the case of 10- to 35-dollar items. An entirely separate problem arises with voluntary registration of tires in that the purchaser cannot be expected to distinguish the serial number from other numbers that appear on each tire. More important, the identification number is placed on the side opposite the whitewall on many tires, and it is probable that the purchaser would fail to locate the correct number in the typical situation where the tires are mounted on his vehicle before he sees them.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK

Honorable Brock Adams Secretary Department of Transportation

We greatly appreciate the Department of Transportation's past cooperation with the Commission on Federal Paperwork. It is our hope that in continuing to work together on specific paperwork problems we will be able to reduce significantly the burden borne by the public.

The Commission has received comments concerning the burdensome reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the mandatory new and retread tire registration program of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It has been brought to our attention that voluntary registration may be a viable alternative to the current reporting program which could reduce the burden on tire dealers and manufacturers.

We have learned that the Senate Commerce Committee has sent you a letter requesting data on the tire registration program including the number of new and retread tires recalled and the percentage of registrants who comply with the program. In order for the Commission to adequately review the reporting requirements we would like to receive a copy of the report you are preparing for the Committee.

We appreciate your continuing cooperation and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With kindest personal regards,

Frank Horton Chairman

ID: 77-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Crane Carrier Corporation's June 8, 1977, question whether the maximum time limits specified by S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for build-up of brake system air pressure from 85 to 100 psi includes the time taken to build up air pressure in an accessory reservoir (for an air starter) that is replenished only when the truck is started.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.1.1 is a performance requirement that assures that repeated use of the brakes during vehicle operation will not deplete the available air supply because of insufficient air compressor capacity. The purpose of this requirement only indirectly relates to the initial air pressure build-up that occurs when the vehicle is first started.

The agency's existing laboratory procedure for compliance testing provides for fully charging the air brake system (and any accessory reservoirs which charge automatically in the process) before the test is begun. The engine is shut off while brake system air pressure is reduced to a level that permits a subsequent build-up for measurement purposes. In order to properly test vehicles with air starters, the agency is modifying its procedure to keep the engine running throughout the test, so that the air starter reservoir remains fully charged throughout the measurement period.

SINCERELY,

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

June 20, 1977 Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Friday, I am pleased to enclose the inquiry we discussed. You suggested that interpretive rulings should be in writing, and I am pleased to respond.

F. MURRAY CALLAHAN General Counsel

CRANE CARRIER COMPANY

June 8, 1977

Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assoc.

Attention: F. Murray Callahan, General Counsel Subject: Compliance with Section S5.1.1 of MVSS 121, when vehicles are equipped with air starters.

We are seeking an interpretation of Section S5.1.1 due to the following condition occurring on vehicles equipped with air starters. These vehicles require a separate large volume (17,787 C.I.) starter reservoir isolated from the trucks air brake system by means of a pressure protection and check valve which maintains a minimum of 75 psi air pressure in the service brake system. However, after initial start up of truck, which could use up to approximately 50% of starter reservoir capacity, and the truck brake system is built up to 75 psi, the protection valve between the two systems opens, and at this point the total system capacity is equal to the brake reservoir volume plus that of the air start reservoir. When this occurs, it is impossible for us to comply with the time limit specified in Section S5.1.1 due to the extremely large combined volume of the two systems.

What we seek interpretation of is if the standard will allow: (1) air start reservoir to be completely refilled as soon as engine is started, (2) draining of air in the service brake reservoirs and then, (3) replenishing the air in the brake reservoir in the time limit specified. This seems to us to satisfy the standard since the standard is only trying to insure of a large enough air compressor to replenish the service brake reservoirs and once the air start system is filled it will have no effect on the brake system operation.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Ray Sizemore Engineer

cc: KEN LAWRENCE

ID: 77-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to AM General Corporation's July 18, 1977, request for confirmation that certain aspects of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. In an October 3, 1977, telephone call with Mr. Herlihy of this office, it was determined that the request for interpretation is now limited to confirmation that the four-way pressure protection valve described in M.A.N.'s June 22, 1977, letter would meet the location and functional requirements of S5.1.2.3 of Standard No. 121. Section S5.1.2.3 specifies --

S5.1.2.3 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

I am enclosing prior interpretations of the location requirement of S5.1.2.3. While the agency cannot "approve" systems based on schematic drawings, it appears that the location of the four-way protection valve in the M.A.N. drawings does not violate the provisions contained in S5.1.2.3.

As we understand the description and capabilities of the four-way valve, it appears to be a pressure protection device that is "equivalent" to the check valve otherwise required by S5.1.2.3.

SINCERELY,

AM General Corporation

July 18, 1977

Duane E. Perrin NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

As you may be aware, AM General has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuernberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany for the purpose of importing roughly 400 articulated buses into the United States which, after completion in our Marshall, Texas facility, will be delivered to eleven domestic transit properties. Contractually, the responsibility for compliance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is divided between AM General and M.A.N. relative to areas of design and manufacturing responsibility. As M.A.N. is primarily responsible for the major mechanical components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension, braking systems, etc., compliance with Federal and State Safety Standards in these specific areas rests with them.

During design of the braking system, it has been determined that clarification relative to Paragraph S5.1.2.3 of FMVSS 121 is required. More specifically, approval is requested for utilization of a 4-way air pressure protection valve in lieu of the simple service reservoir check valves described in the standard.

The functioning configuration of this 4-way protection valve is completely outlined in the attached material from M.A.N.

Additionally, consideration and approval is requested relative to the outlined testing procedure which will be utilized to demonstrate proof of compliance to FMVSS 124.

I believe the attached material is fairly self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to call me at area code (313) 722-4900.

Your prompt consideration and approval will be greatly appreciated.

M. J. Shillinger Project Engineer

ATTACH.

To the Department of Transportation

June 22, 1977

Re: Clarification for compliance with FMVSS 121 and 124:

Dear Sirs:

M.A.N. is supplier of articulated buses to AM General, Wayne, Mich., importing these vehicles for the first time to the US, and therefore is confronted to proof compliance with all FMVSS standards applicable.

Due to the fact, that this is the first time we have some specific problems with the interpretation of certain paragraphs, which could not even be clarified absolutely by the friendly assistance of our partner AMG, we are relaying our requests now to you.

Enclosed please find two write-ups of our interpretation of certain details of FMVSS 124 and 121.

The problem area regarding FMVSS 124 concerns the test conditions where we would like to ask you either to approve our interpretation or to inform us of an acceptable solution.

Regarding FMVSS 121 we are quite aware of the tests we have to perform to verify compliance, but we would like you to check the basic schematics of our brake system. Please give special attention to the fact, that this schematic does not allow the incorporation of additional check valves on the inlets of the individual air tanks as air flow in both directions occurs. We assume, however, that these tanks are to be regarded as one system and are sufficiently protected by the four circuit protection valve.

To our knowledge the system as described incorporates safety features superior to the systems presently operating in the US. We would like to thank you for your efforts and to point out the urgency the matter has for us.

MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG Aktiengesellschaft Werk Munchen

ppa.

(Dr. Hagen)

(i.A.)

(Dr. Domandl)

[ENCLOSURES OMITTED.]

ID: 77-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Lamar Gudger - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977, addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.

Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his area of operation which is considerably less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.

Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirement for retreaded tires.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter to Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject. You may be interested to know that a recent meeting with representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.

SINCERELY,

Encls. Constituent's LTR. To Sen. MAGNUSON DATED AUG. 3, 1977

Congress of The United States House of Representatives

June 15, 1977

Norman Sultan

First, let me apologize for my delay in responding to your letter of May 27, 1977. I have noted your concern over the provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requiring tire registration and the fact that the rate of response is now less than ten percent and that the added expense for such return "is simply just not worth it".

We were in contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the study which you cited which is to be conducted on the advisability of making such program voluntary and were informed that this has been under consideration for some time. In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, I am today taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the appropriate officials at this Administration in order that they might have the benefit of your views and an opportunity to supply up-to-date infromation on the study. Upon receipt of a response I will forward you a copy. I also appreciate having your views in regard to an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Fortunately in Western North Carolina and in many other areas, the Better Business Bureau and private agencies are working effectively to protect the consumer from fraud and oppression. Moreover, the North Carolina Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General each maintain an assistant or a division to prosecute persons who defraud the public by false and fradulent sales practices. For these reasons and because I generally oppose creating new federal agencies and imposing more bureaucratic regulations, I expect to vote against the Agency for Consumer Advocacy.

The House Government Committee reported H. R. 6805 May 10th and it could reach the House Floor soon. I will certainly keep your observations about the bill in mind when it comes up for a vote.

With best wishes and kind personal regards.

Lamar Gudger Member of Congress

bcc: NHTSA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON

May 27, 1977

The Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives House Office Building

In 1966 the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains a provision on tire registration. The law went into effect six years ago and has caused tire dealers a lot of expense and very little satisfaction. Our rate of response from small dealers in this registration card mailing is now probably running less than 10% and, in my opinion, during the six years, we feel that the added expense for the return is simply just not worth it.

I have just recently learned that the National Highway Traffic Administration will conduct a study on the advisability of making this program voluntary. We hope that the law can be changed to make the registration voluntary because as we said before, the expense is unnecessary and the customer does not want it.

While I am at it, I might as well tell you that I think the passage of the Consumer Agency Billing which creates an independent agency for consumer advocacy. I am against the creation of this agency because I firmly believe that communications between consumers and retailers, particularly in my industry, can be improved by the establishment of a consumer council "which can be adapted and run by local and area tire dealer groups". You fellows must not have thought too much about this agency yourselves since it only passed by one vote.

I am sure you have gotten acclamated to the ways of Washington by now so with best regards to you and yours.

Norman Sultan