Interpretation ID: 1983-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 5, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. K. Inoue National Technical Service Manager Toyo Tire Corporation Compton, California 90221

Dear Mr. Inoue:

This responds to your February 16, 1983, letter to Joseph Innes of this agency regarding permissible methods for displaying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information on the sidewall of tires. Your first proposed alternative would delete the treadwear grade number, but not the word "TREADWEAR" itself, from the format established in Option 3 of Figure 1, 49 CFR 575.104. The second proposed alternative would delete both the word "TREADWEAR" and the numerical grade from the format specified in Option 3, Figure 1. Your proposed alternatives would be used only on tires produced in molds manufactured before August 8, 1983.

In the agency's February 7, 1983, notice suspending the treadwear portion of the UTQGS, tires produced in molds manufactured prior to August 8 were required to display UTQG information on tire sidewalls in one of the formats specified in Figure 1 or in Figure 6 of 49 CFR 575.104. Your first proposed alternative is clearly different from each of the permitted formats. The permitted formats require either that the word "TREADWEAR" must appear next to the treadwear grade on the tire, or neither the word nor the numerical grade must appear. Your first alternative could confuse tire purchasers, since the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the word "TRACTION" to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire. Therefore, your first proposed alternative would not be permitted under 49 CFR 575.104.

Your second proposed alternative is quite similar to one permitted format, Option 3 in Figure 6. The only difference between your second alternative and Option 3 is that the traction information is centered in the format in Option 3, while it is slightly off-center in your alternative. Your second alternative should in no way be misleading to tire purchasers, however. Further, nothing in our regulations specifies precise centering of the traction information.

Any inconsistency between your proposed format and the permitted one is so small that the agency would, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, make no attempt to enforce the UTQGS format requirement when your second alternative is used.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 16, 1983

Mr. Joseph Innes Office of Market Incentives National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Innes:

Regarding our telephone conversation to you on February 16, this is the official written question. We would appreciate your prompt reply. We have the following questions regarding the amendment of UTQG regulation:

Can we modify the molding grading information on the sidewall of the tire produced in the mold manufactured before August 7, 1983 from Figure 1 the following way?:

1). If we take off the grading number of the treadwear from Figure 1, (PLEASE SEE EXAMPLE) is it acceptable?

**INSERT**

2). If we take off the letters of TREADWEAR and the grading number of the treadwear from Figure 1. (PLEASE SEE EXAMPLE) is it acceptable?

**INSERT**

In case we change the tread compound of the tire as the grading of treadwear is changeable, we need this kind of modification. According to your purpose of the amendment, we think this modification shall be allowed.

Sincerely yours,

K. Inoue National Technical Service Manager

KI/lg