ID: nht76-5.10

DATE: 08/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's July 7, 1976, request for revision of the requirements of S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, so that passage of the described parallelepiped through the emergency door can be effected with its lower surface several inches above the bus floor. Section 5.4.2.1 requires that the 45-inch dimension of the parallelepiped remain vertical, that the 24-inch dimension remain parallel to the opening, and that the lower surface remain in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

The three specifications for passage of the parallelepiped through the opening are intended to describe, for the benefit of the manufacturer, how the NHTSA will conduct its compliance testing. These specifications do not represent a requirement that the opening be constructed without a threshold or corner obstructions. As the agency interprets this requirement, minor obstructions that do not necessitate passage of the parallelepiped through the opening more than 1 inch above the floor are not prohibited by this requirement. Thus, in the case you describe, the NHTSA would move the parallelepiped through the opening with its sides vertical and the rear surface parallel to the rear surface of the bus, just above the obstructions, but no more than 1 inch above the bus floor.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

July 7, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 - School Bus Emergency Exit Requirements (Docket No. 75-3; Notice 2 - Effective October 26, 1976)

Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard require that the Parallelepiped should be entered into the emergency door opening, keeping the 24 inch dimension (the base of the Parallelepiped) parallel to the opening and the lower surface (the base of the Parallelepiped) in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

By reducing the seating capacity of the bus, by installing one (1) 26 inch and one (1) 39 inch seat in the rearmost row, the requirement for the 24 inch wide Parallelepiped can be met in Superior School Buses, shown on Drawing No. 4100429, attached. However, also as shown on the attached drawing, the requirement for keeping the lower surface in contact with the floor cannot be met in Superior Buses.

The problem as can be seen on the attached drawing is two-fold, and as follows:

Section B-B, depicts a riser that as installed functions as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement.

View Circle A, depicts a 2.81 inch radius that exists in the two lower corners of the emergency door opening. These radii also serves as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement. Most importantly, these 2.81 inch radii are a part of the emergency door sash and are a part of a major structural member of the bus rearend assembly.

If the Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation are required to comply with the exact requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard, and a major reengineering, redesign and retooling program would be required, in addition, the newly configured rearend assembly would need to be subjected to an extensive real-world evaluation to establish its' structural reliability.

The Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that the requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above reference safety standard be rewritten to permit the existence of minor functional components in the emergency door openings such as the "riser" and minor radii as depicted on the attached drawing. It is the opinion of the Super Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation that permitted existence of such minor functional components would in no manner obstruct the effective egress of children in schoolbus crash situation.

Your concurrence in the above matter would be appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht76-5.11

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. G. Milby

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's May 29, 1976, question whether safety chains are prohibited across the opening of a side or rear emergency door that is provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release. You note that the State of Washington plans to require a "seat guard" at side emergency doors to prevent students from accidentally falling through these openings.

The requirements of Standard No. 217 for school buses manufactured on or after October 26, 1976, specify that each school bus shall be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window (S5.2.3.1). Unobstructed passage through these exists from the interior of the bus is required by S5.4. A parallele-piped of specified dimensions must be capable of unobstructed passage through rear doors, and the rearmost point of a seat back must coincide with the forward edge of a side emergency door, so that unobstructed passage from the vehicle interior is preserved.

The agency's intent in specifying these emergency exit provisions is to assure unimpeded egress from school buses in the event of accident. Small children are often transported in school buses, and provisions for emergency exists should be as simple as possible to assist their exit. For these reasons, sections S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 prohibit the installation of safety chains across any emergency exit provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides:

@ 103

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

It is the opinion of this agency that the State of Washington's requirement would be preempted as of the effective date of the new school bus requirements of Standard No. 217, with regard to emergency doors that are installed in compliance with S5.2.3.1. The agency does not believe that the requirement for safety chains constitutes a higher level of protection, and has concluded that it would cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the requirements of S5.2.3.1 and S5 4.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 20, 1976

Thomas Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

It has been our practice to furnish safety chains with snaps on both ends across side emergency doors as standard equipment per the enclosed photograph. Chains are optional equipment for rear emergency doors. The State of Washington plans to require the following on school buses:

"Seats adjacent to side emergency doors, if so positioned, shall have a seat guard of adequate size to prevent student falling from bus should emergency door be accidentally opened."

Will the subject safety chains or seat guards for either side or rear emergency doors be legal for school buses after October 26, 1976?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.12

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anshelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1976, question whether the windows of "recreational vehicles" qualify as "secondary means of egress" and what Federal requirements would apply to them if they do so qualify.

The only Federal requirement for the provision of emergency exists apply to buses (Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217 (copy enclosed)). "Bus" is defined by our regulations to mean "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 571.3). Thus, Standard No. 217 would apply to the vehicle you describe if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons (including the driver) while the vehicle is in motion.

The standard does not use the term "secondary means of egress" but specifies a minimum area of unobstructed opening that may be provided by several means (e.g., emergency door, "push-out window").

SINCERELY,

ANSCHELEWITZ BARR ANSEL & BONELLO

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Program

Att: Conrad Cooke

Re: Feimster v. Concord Motor Homes Our file #14247

Pursuant to Mr. Williams' telephone conversation with this office on 7 September 1976, he informed me that you have conducted an investigation relative to recreational vehicles having secondary means of egress.

Concord Motor Homes, the defendant in the above-captioned matter, alleges that the windows of their recreational vehicle quali as secondary means of egress in that one can break the tempered glass and climb out. The windows involved in this accident were not the "pop-out" type.

I do not agree with Concord Motor Homes' assumption that these windows qualify as a secondary means of egress.

I would appreciate it if you would forward to me any information you may have with regard to whether or not windows of recreational vehicles qualify as secondary means of egress, and, if so, the standards said windows must comply with as a secondary means of egress. If there is a charge for this information, please advise and I will forward you a check at once.

Thank you very much.

Richard B. Ansell

ID: nht76-5.13

DATE: 04/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 22, 1976, request for interpretation of the provision of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that requires unobstructed passage of a described parallelepiped through the opening provided by an open rear emergency door in the case of a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds (S5.4.2(a)). The dimensions of the parallelepiped are 45 inches by 24 inches by 12 inches, and it is oriented so that the 45-inch dimension is vertical, the 24-inch dimension is parallel to the opening, and the lower surface is in contact with the bus floor.

You point out that "unobstructed passage" through the opening could be considered to occur when the rearmost surface of the parallelpiped coincides with a vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening, or intersects the inner surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening.

The NHTSA considers unobstructed passage of the parallelepiped to occur when its rearmost surface coincides with the vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at the bottom of the opening in question. Thus, your intention to assure compliance by measuring unobstructed passage at the point when the rearmost surface is flush with the bus body outer surface appears justified. The agency does not consider the bus body outer surface to include rub rails or trim materials for purposes of this measurement.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 22, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, PARAGRAPH S5.4.2a, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 26, 1976

This paragraph specifies a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide, and 12 inches deep. We need an interpretation as to the reference point from which the 12" dimension should be measured. The four alternatives are:

1. From outside body at floor level.

2. From inside body at floor level.

3. From outside body at top of parallelepiped.

4. From inside body at top of parallelepiped.

As you can see from the enclosed photograph, the measuring point can make several inches difference depending on where it is located.

Because time is so important to us in complying with this standard and several others, we have made a decision to proceed based on measuring the 12" at the floor level with the rear surface of the parallelepiped flush with the outside surface of the body as shown in the enclosed photos. If this interpretation is not valid, please call us immediately. We shall look forward to your early written confirmation of this interpretation.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.14

DATE: 05/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Delbert L. Latta; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your March 23, 1976, request for consideration of the views of a constituent that provision of air cushion restraint systems in passenger cars would be too costly, and that motor vehicle regulation should concentrate on used vehicles because they are equipped with fewer safety and emission features.

As you are aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle standards that will reduce the number of accidents and deaths, and the severity of injuries, that occur on our nation's highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation evaluates the available means to meet this goal. Restraining vehicle occupants to protect them against impact with the vehicle interior in a crash offers one of the greatest opportunities for improving motor vehicle safety. Reliance on existing seatbelt systems has prevented only a small portion of the death and injuries that occur from impact with the vehicle interior. For this reason, other means of providing restraint are under consideration. I can assure you that the issues of purchase cost, replacement cost, and the alternatives to air cushions are being included in this consideration.

The safe operation of motor vehicles has traditionally been regulated by the individual States and not the Federal Government. While the Act does not authorize the retrofit of safety devices to vehicles in use, the NHTSA has issued a highway safety program standard for State periodic motor vehicle inspection programs (23 CFR @ 1204.4). Part 570, Vehicle in Use Standards (49 CFR Part 570), sets forth a procedure for inspection of older vehicles for use by the States in implementing the program standard. Also, the NHTSA has established demonstration diagnostic inspection projects that include emission as well as safety inspection of vehicles in use.

I have no basis for comment on the reported decision by Allstate Insurance Company not to consider the effects of bumper modification in establishing its premium structure.

I trust that this response will answer your constituent's questions.

ID: nht76-5.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 8, 1976, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to safety glazing for use in "slow moving" vehicles. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions. Apparently, your earlier letter of February 5, 1976, was misplaced.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in most motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A glazing manufacturer must certify any glazing that is to be used in a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) as being in compliance with Standard No. 205. "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's opinion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" under the definition. Glazing material that is to be used in a vehicle that does not qualify as a "motor vehicle" does not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd

Robert L. Carter -- Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Carter,

On 5th February 1976 I wrote to the Department of Transportation requesting information on possible regulations in the U.S.A. governing the safety glazing to be fitted in slow moving vehicles. To date I have not received a reply. It may be that the letter was lost in the post and I, therefore, enclose a copy.

I realise, of course, that this query is probably nothing to do with your department, but I would be grateful if you could either forward it to the correct authority or alternatively let us have the address of this authority in order that we can write to them ourselves.

Yours sincerely,

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

FEBRUARY 5, 1976

The Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir,

SLOW MOVING VEHICLES

Can you please let us know what regulations, if any, govern the type of safety glazing which must be fitted in slow moving vehicles (i.e. vehicles with a maximum speed of 20-25 km/h) in the U.S.A. These vehicles are usually agricultural or forestry vehicles, etc. which might go on a public road for short periods.

Our understanding of U.S. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966 and F.M.V.S.S. 205 are that neither covers such vehicles. The former describes a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways" and the latter applies only to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motor cycles, slide-in campers and pick up covers.

If the above query does not come within your jurisdiction, we would be grateful if you would forward our letter to the correct authority.

Yours faithfully, TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY LIMITED;

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

ID: nht76-5.16

DATE: 05/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. A. Olsen, Ph.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1976, question whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the replacement of seat belt webbing in seat belt assemblies to refurbish deteriorated portions of the webbing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to regulate the manufacture, but not the repair, of motor vehicle equipment such as seat belt assemblies. The NHTSA has issued a standard that applies to the manufacture and sale of seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209)). In enforcement of this standard, the agency must, therefore, distinguish between what is "repair" and what is "manufacture" of a seat belt assembly.

You intend to accept existing seat belt assemblies from vehicle owners and to replace the webbing portions, reusing the hardware that is recovered from the existing assembly. From this description, the agency considers that the operation would constitute the manufacture of a seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209. The majority of the assembled product would be new material, and the manufacturing operations involved in cutting and sewing constitute significant factors in the construction of the finished product.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. OLSEN, Ph.D. Engineering Psychologist

Licensed Psychologist: Pa. #PS0235 Member: APA, PPA, HFS, IEEE, SAE

March 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We have been considering establishing a mail-order firm specializing in replacement of the webbing of seat belt assemblies. As you may know, belt replacements through automobile dealers may cost $ 15-20 per assembly, while the webbing, which is the only component that deteriorates, could be supplied for about $ 1-2. By reuse of the hardware and quick turnaround times, stocking only the most common assemblies and allowing trade-ins, this service could expand as the demand increases and keep the cost low.

We would like an opinion from NHTSA on the standards which might be involved in such a service. Specifically, if webbing, assembly, and sewing are comparable to original equipment, would any testing for final assembly strength be required? We assume that reasonable workmanship would be sufficient if standard components and procedures are used. Any extensive testing or certification requirements would preclude initiation of this service firm since very small initial volumes would be anticipated, and cost must be kept low to cover labor, postage, and supplies.

We feel that the public is beginning to appreciate the value of seat belts, partly as a result of the interlock which demonstrated that the belts themselves "weren't so bad after all." Now there needs to be a way to replace frayed belts at a price that is not a strong deterrent.

Richard A. Olsen

ID: nht76-5.17

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976, concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the "redbooks") in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.

You have also asked several questions concerning the relationship between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Pating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of retraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA This matter refers to Part 567 "Certification" and Part 568 "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages" of 49CFR.

Many of the interpretations and comments dealing with "rated loads" refer to the circumstance of exceeding the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). However, the certification label also requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) also be noted. We have not as yet seen any question or interpretation dealing with the matter of overload on an axle. Our questions then are as follows.

1. Assume a tank type motor vehicle; which when loaded full to its rated cargo load; expressed as a volume of a specific commodity. (i.e., water); does not exceed the GVWR rating but the load is distributed such that a GAWR is exceeded. Is this a violation of the regulations?

2. Assume the same type vehicle loaded with a material whose specific weight varies over a limited range but does have an average acceptable value for general use (i.e. asphalt). If a GAWR is exceeded is this a violation of the regulations?

3. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 2, constructed of compartments for variable commodities and designed for a specific loading arrangement. If the loading arrangement is not followed by the user and the GAWR is exceeded but not the GVWR, is the manufacturer liable?

4. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 1, which is loaded full by the user with a material heavier than specified and designed for by the manufacturer and both the GVWR and GAWR are exceeded, is the manufacturer liable?

5. If a volumetric load of specific weight is considered by the manufacturer in rating the vehicle, what steps are necessary to protect the manufacturer from alleged violations of rating if other commodities are carried?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA

We have become aware of the process whereby interpretation to paragraphs of Parts of 49CFR (particularly Parts 567, 568 and 571) are distributed on an informal basis through various trade associations. We further note that they apparently are carried in your files under the designation of "N40-30".

Since our activities are not completely served by any one particular association and we are not prepared to join a multitude of associations, is there a compilation of interpretations which are available from NHTSA on a regular or subscription basis? If there is such a service we would appreciate hearing about it. If not, how do we assure ourselves that interpretations which are being made on matters of common concern are made available to us so that we can comply with these interpretations?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht72-6.48

DATE: 12/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Chester H. Smith; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

United States Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

October 26, 1972

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

Dear Dr. Toms:

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

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

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Chester H. Smith Staff Director - General Counsel

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

October 16, 1972

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

Dear Mr. Smith:

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

Sincerely,

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

enc.

RESOLUTION

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht72-6.49

DATE: 12/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Edgewood Motorcycle Shop

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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