The subject of "Performance Standards for New Tires for Passenger Cars and Station Wagons" was discussed at the 1964 spring meeting of the AAMVA's Committee on Engineering and Vehicle Inspection.

It was the consensus of this committee that tire performance standards would be a good first subject for consideration by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission. To facilitate this, Chairman James L. Karns, Wisconsin's commissioner of motor vehicles, appointed a tire standards task force under the chairmanship of Capt. R. B. King, safety officer, Virginia State Police.

This task force was instructed to make a study of tire performance needs and to make a report together with recommendations to the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission at its first annual meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, September 21, 1964.

At this meeting Captain King presented a comprehensive report from the tire standards task force. This report included proposed performance standards for new tires and standards for recapping, retreading, regrooving, and recutting used tires.

The Commission gave this careful consideration and decided to separate the new tire performance provisions from the balance of the report. The Commission's executive committee was instructed to make this separation, and to put the portion relating to new tires for passenger cars and station wagons into proper form and to issue it as a report, as required by the compact, precedent to the establishment by the Commission, of tire performance requirements. This report was issued November 4, 1964.

No less than 60 days after publication of a report, the Commission, upon due notice, is required to hold a hearing. A public hearing on the Commission's "Report on Performance Requirements for New Tires for Passenger Cars and Station Wagons" was scheduled and held in New York City on January 8, 1965.

Just prior to the January 8, 1965 hearing, Chairman MacDonald resigned as Maine's secretary of state and his retirement as chairman of this Commission was automatic. As vice chairman, DeWitt Whitman succeeded to the chairmanship.

At the January 8 hearing, testimony was read into the record from several member States and from the tire and automotive industries. Most were in general agreement with proposed tire performance test requirements contained in the report.

Some indicated apprehension that the Commission's standards might be too stringent. Some fear was expressed that such standards might be so weak as to be meaningless.

Following this hearing, interested parties were permitted an additional 60 days in which to submit supplemental information.

In the meantime, the Commission and its interim staff continued to explore the matter of tire standards and testing methods.

The Commission's executive committee met again for 3 days, April 27, 28, and 29, 1965. During this meeting it again consulted with State equipment approval officials, private consultants, National Bureau of Standards officials, and with industry representatives.

It was only then, after consideration of all currently available information, that the tire performance requirements and uniform test procedures contained in Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission Reg

ulation V-1 formally adopted on May 14, 1965, and released Saturday, May 22, 1965 were formulated.

As chairman of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, I feel that we have approached the task of determining minimum performance requirements for new tires for passenger cars and station wagons as objectively as possible. I feel that we have moved forward, in the words of our Supreme Court, with "all deliberate speed."

In establishing and issuing performance requirements for new tires for passenger cars and station wagons within a year after it began its study of the problem, the Commission has progressed, I submit to you, with the degree of dispatch contemplated by the Congress when it enacted the Beamer resolution.

The road to our first vehicle equipment safety regulation has been neither smooth nor easy. The Commission has been the target of considerable criticism. We have been accused of being a tool of the automotive industry.

We have been accused of being under the control of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. It was predicted that we would docilely rubberstamp, no pun intended, voluntary tire standards promulgated by the tire industry.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe that our new tire regulation is the best evidence that we have approached the problem of performance requirements for new tires objectively and that we have arrived at a fair and equitable solution. A copy of our tire standards is attached. I ask permission to have these standards included as part of the record. (See app. p. 55.)

Senator HARTKE. That will be included as part of the record.

Mr. HENNESSEE. We are indebted to many people for their advice and counsel. We are especially indebted to staff personnel of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, to Mr. Arnold W. Wise, counsel to New York's commissioner of motor vehicles, and to Mr. Don Blanchard, former technical official of the Society of Automotive Engineers, who served as legal and technical advisers.

We also gratefully acknowledge the counsel, assistance, and cooperation of State officials from California, New York, and Pennsylvania, and to representatives of the U.S. Bureau of Standards, the General Services Administration, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the Tire & Rim Association, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association, and to the many individuals who have rendered material assistance to the Commission.

Thirty-eight-it is now, Mr. Chairman, 39, with the addition of Minnesota States are now, by legislative enactment, members of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact. This means that in at least 39 States uniform regulation of tires, and eventually of all items of vehicle safety equipment, is in sight.

It is now possible for an interstate commission to approve uniform standards which can be promptly adopted by member State legislatures or be put into effect administratively by State motor vehicle authorities.

Our tire regulation is a milestone. We present our standards to member States, the motoring public, and to the tire industry humbly, but with pride. We believe that with the adoption of these standards we have succeeded in putting a stable "floor" on tire safety perform

ance which will eliminate unsafe and dangerous tires and raise the quality of passenger car tires generally.

In conclusion, as Chairman of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, chartered jointly, in effect, by the Congress and the Commission's 39 member legislatures, I wish to make two points.

First, the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission is interested in providing the motoring public with a safe and usable tire. The Commission is not in competition with the Congress, with the General Services Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, or anyone else. We are concerned, in the instant case, under the authority given us, with determining minimum performance requirements for new tires.

The General Services Administration is concerned with specific tire purchase specifications; the Federal Trade Commission, as I understand it, with truth in tire advertising. These three objectives are not in conflict. They each complement the other.

My second point is that this Commission, created by the States under authority granted in advance by the Congress, has moved forward rapidly to meet its public obligations in the area of new tires for passenger cars and station wagons. It has promulgated performance. requirements for new tires that are substantially stronger than those previously recommended.

In its own right the Commission deserves a chance to prove that it can-that it has provided tire standards that are adequate to protect the motoring public.

This, Mr. Chairman, concludes the statement of Chairman Whitman. I would, if I may, make just one point of my own in answer to some questions that have been raised here today and in the previous hearing. First, it is my understanding-and I am no engineer-that these standards are considerably higher than the standards contained in the Rubber Manufacturers Association's voluntary standards, and they are also, I have been told, considerably higher than those contained in Senator Speno's bills in New York.

For example, in relation to the comparative standards here of the rubber manufacturers, the VESC standards on the blowout or plunger test are 25 percent stronger across the board.

In addition, these tests are scheduled to be held on a tire which has completed the endurance test. This, in effect, will add an additional 10 or 15 percent to the strength of the test.

So, in effect, then, these standards we submit to you are approximately 35 to 40 percent stronger across the board than the standards contained in the rubber manufacturers. In addition to this, and it was noted by Assistant Secretary Hollomon in his presentation, previously, our standards do contain a cut growth test and a bead separation, or rolloff test.

I would like to thank you very much for your courteous reception. That concludes my statement.

Senator HARTKE. Mr. Hennessee, for the purpose of the record, what is your position with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission? Mr. HENNESSEE. This is rather difficult to actually describe, I suppose. I am counsel for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

Senator HARTKE. Who are they?

54-441-65-5

Mr. HENNESSEE. This is the association of State and provincial motor vehicle administrators who are charged with the administration of our motor vehicle laws and with the establishment of vehicle safety equipment standards on the State level.

Senator HARTKE. Who employs you in that capacity? Who pays the bill, in other words?

Mr. HENNESSEE. Our funding generally comes from State membership dues. We also operate under some specific grants from the insurance industry and from the automotive industry.

Senator HARTKE. Do you have any connection with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission other than in this advisory relationship?

Mr. HENNESSEE. No, sir.

Senator HARTKE. Are you in a position to answer questions on behalf of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission?

Mr. HENNESSEE. No, sir.

Senator HARTKE. Under such circumstances, it can't do very much good for me to direct any questions to you. I have some questions from Senator Nelson for the record to be answered by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission.

I will submit those for the record and ask that the commission answer them.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON TO THE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT SAFETY COMMISSION ON S. 1643

Question (1) How did the commission take up the tire question? formally referred by any State legislature?

Was it

Question (2) Can the commission take up any vehicle safety subject on its own? If it can, couldn't the commission consider all known vehicle safety issues immediately and produce a comprehensive code?

Question (3) Is there anything in the compact that would prevent a single State from referring 40 or 50 safety subjects and then asking all other States to refrain from passing any legislation until standards had been decided by the commission?

Question (4) I understand that the compact allows the commission to study the need for safety equipment as well as technical requirements. Do you foresee that the compact would ever issue reports saying that there was no need for proposed State or Federal legislation?

Question (5) Does the compact allow the commission to set up quality grades or labels not strictly connected with safety? For example, if safety is considered adequate when a tire wears out before it blows out, it is possible that all tires could meet such a requirement. However, there would still be some tires that would wear far longer than others. Can the commission set up such grades for consumer information beyond a strict safety purpose?

REPLY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON TO VEHICLE EQUIP MENT SAFETY COMMISSION RE S. 1643, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE ON JUNE 7, 1965

(By Basil R. Creighton, Administrative Officer, Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, Washington, D.C., July 21, 1965)

Question 1. How did the commission take up the tire question? Was it formally referred by any State legislature?

Answer. The tire performance standards question was referred to the com mission by the Engineering and Vehicle Inspection Committee of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The membership of the Ameri can Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is made up of State and provincial officials charged with responsibility for administration and enforce ment of our motor vehicle laws. (See p. 3. statement, DeWitt Whitman, chair man, Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, submitted June 7, 1965.)

This question has not been formally referred to the commission by individual State legislature. The broader question of minimum performance requirements for all items of automotive equipment, however, has been referred to the commission by the legislatures of all member States through enactment of the vehicle equipment safety compact. Pertinent portions of article V of the vehicle equipment compact are as follows:

ARTICLE V. VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT

"(a) In the interest of vehicular and public safety, the commission may study the need for or desirability of the establishment of or changes in performance requirements or restrictions for any item of equipment * * *.

"(b) *** the commission may issue rules, regulations, or codes embodying performance requirements or restrictions for any item or items of equipment **** [Empasis added.]

Question 2. Can the commission take up any vehicle safety subject on its own? If it can, couldn't the commission consider all known safety issues immediately and produce a comprehensive code?

own.

Answer. The commission cannot take up any vehicle safety subject on its The commission's authority is limited by article V of the vehicle equipment safety compact to consideration of the need for or desirability of establishment of or changes in performance requirements or restrictions for items of automotive equipment and to issuance of rules, regulations, or codes embodying such performance requirements or restrictions. The commission can, on its

own motion, consider any item of automotive equipment within these contextual restrictions.

Under this authority, limited as it is, the commission could immediately consider the need for the establishment of or changes in performance requirements for any item of automotive equipment. Practical considerations relating to commission budget and personnel limitations and to procedural steps which must be followed, as set forth in article V of the compact, preclude “immediate" consideration of an action on all items of automotive equipment.

Article V contains procedural limitations which relate directly to the "immediacy" of the commission's efforts and productivity. For example, a “needs" study is required. If sufficient need is found, a report which contains recommended or proposed performance requirements must be published. Issuance of this report is a condition precedent to holding a public hearing within "no less than 60 days" after publication of a report.

These limitating factors preclude both the "immediate" consideration of "all known vehicle safety issues" or the "immediate" production of any comprehensive equipment safety code.

Question 3. Is there anything in the compact that would prevent a single State from referring 40 or 50 safey subjects and then asking all other States to refrain from passing any legislation until standards had been decided by the commission? Answer. The thrust of this question seems to be toward what any single member State or member State legislature, rather than the compact commission, migth or might not do. If this is the question's true import, it lies outside the scope of the commission's authority.

To answer directly, however, there is nothing in the compact that would prevent a single member State from referring 40 or 50 items of automotive equipment to the commission for its consideration and action under the authority and restrictions contained in article V. Direct referral by a State has not been made a condition precedent to the commission's authority, and, although not precluded, would not be binding.

Whether or not any single member jurisdiction would resort to the procedure outlined in the question as a device to discourage legislation on the subject is purely conjectural. We do not understand that the commission's role should be to block needed legislation; it is inconceivable that the commission would lend itself to such practices.

Question 4. I understand that the compact allows the commission to study the need for safety equipment as well as technical requirements. Do you foresee that the compact would ever issue reports saying that there was no need for proposed State or Federal legislation?

Answer. The precise and pertinent language of the commission's authority, as set fort in paragraphs a and b of article V of the compact are to (a) study the need for or desirability of the establishment of or changes in performance re