Document NGeVLaR1BBm7jgopN3KBMq8JV

V-inoles of Annual Meeting June 2c--!?.<. There was some feeling that Federal Stinaaras might preempt tnese various stats reputations, Mr. Kettering indicated that even ir they did, the exoerlence with brake fluids shows that the state will still reouire certifica tion, even if it is called registration. The conclusion appeared to be that even if Federal standards are written, the industry will still have to face certification (or registration) with tha various states. The consideration of legal challenges to AAMVA certification reouiremsnts was discussed: No state law now requires recertification on the V-3 procedure. The KAMI'S is simply an association of administrators who have Questionable lep3l status - can 3 state delegate their regulatory powers to such an association' Tn= certification fees are uncontroll3ble - it parallels taxation without reoresentation. Those paying fees to AUWn are paying for their own surveillance. Mr. A. Comins auestioned what safeguards the industry has as regards fees charged by \AMVA. Mr. Nelson answered that there were none and that AAMVA had already indicated that the fees would rise when their surveillance program starts. After discussion of the Compliance Sampling and Certification Responsibilities of Manufacturers, the Chairman requested recommendaiions from the Membership for member5 to serve on a suggested Quality Control Sub-Committee. A question from the floor asked whether members not using the recommended Quality control oractices might not be cited as not complying, without specifically answering, the point was made that even if ona did use recommended samoling technioues tnare was no guarantee that he would be complying with reouirements. It would oe the intention of this Sub-Committee tc suggest reasonable procedures and techniques, with samoling requirements that reasonable government regulators would accept. During discussion on the NHTSA plans for a braks lining standard using a single end inertia ovnamometer. Docket 70-27 for the upgrading of FMVSS 105 was discussed. To resolve a Question on Docket 70-27 it was pointed out that Docket 7C--27 oertains to all vehicles with hydraulic brakes and that there are different reouirements between passenger cars and other less than 10,000 GVW vehicles, as compared with vehicles over 10,000 GVfc. Mr. A. Comins Drought uo a ouestion concerning materials as a substitute for asbestos in friction miorials. Mr. Comins suggested that the institute engage an outside consulting firm to determine if there was a practical substitute for asbestos*in brake lining. Such a firm would be asked to resolve (l) If ther were no practical substitute, say so, and the Institute could uso this ns support in dealing with asbestos regulations; (2) If there were practical substitutes, pass this information on to the Institute along with the consulting firm's recommendations. Rather than call for a motion, a show of hands was called for to indicate if members were interested in this approach. A show of hands indicated 7 or S. These were not all delegates(or alternates sitting in place of delegates). As no motion was properly seconded, it mas recommended that the Asbestos Study Committee consider this suggestion and report back to the Board.