ID: nht79-4.14

DATE: 06/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, addressed to Ms. Eileen T. Leahy of my staff, in which you provide further information in support of your earlier request for this agency's opinion as to whether a 1980 4WD Hatchback Sedan to be imported by Subaru of America can be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

As I stated to you in my letter of May 31, 1979, the fact that a vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify the vehicle as an MPV, as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3. Your second letter lists six other features of the 1980 hatchback sedan which you state are designed to permit occasional off-road use. The additional features you describe are: a ground clearance of 8.07 inches, or 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle; adjusting devices to permit an additional 0.78 inches of ground clearance front and rear; an engine under-cover to protect the engine from rocks and other debris; a clutch cover to prevent entry of dust and sand; bumper overriders to protect front and rear bumpers; and a tubular guard in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.

The ground clearance you describe exceeds that specified in the definition of automobiles "capable of off-highway operation" contained in the fuel economy regulations (49 CFR @ 523.5 (b)(2)(iv)). In addition, the other features you describe appear to be designed to protect various parts of the vehicle from damage from rocks, sand and other types of debris that are more likely to be encountered in off-road driving. Therefore, all of the items you mention can be considered "'special features for occasional off-road operation" when determining the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Since the vehicle as you have described it in your letters has several features in addition to four-wheel drive that make it suitable for occasional off-road use, it is the agency's opinion that the 4WD Hatchback Sedan would qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

SINCERELY,

May 23, 1979

Eileen Leahy Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Re: 1980 4WD HB Sedan MPV

Dear Ms. Leahy: On April 23rd, our letter No. 056-79C requested your office's opinion regarding MPV classification of this carline. Based upon our recent telephone conversation, we provide the following list of special features, which in addition to four-wheel drive, will permit this vehicle to be operated for occasional off-road use.

1. The ground clearance is 8.07 inches which is 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle.

2. It is equipped with adjusting device(s) to further increase the ground clearance, both front and rear by an additional 0.78 inches.

3. An engine undercover is installed to protect the engine from rocks and other debris.

4. A special clutch cover is provided to prevent the invasion of dust and sand.

5. Bumper overriders are provided on front and rear bumpers to protect bumpers.

6. A tubular guard is placed in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

ID: nht79-4.15

DATE: 03/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the delay in responding to your April 18, 1978, letter criticizing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation concerning the responsibility of a manufacturer for ensuring that its vehicles will not be overloaded when transporting materials for which they are designed. In that interpretation, the agency indicated that a vehicle whose tank cargo volume is of such size that it misrepresents the assigned GVWR and GAWR values of that vehicle, thus, inviting overloading might be considered to have a safety related defect. Please permit me to qualify the interpretation in the light of your criticism.

The NHTSA realizes that overloading is a problem created for the most part by the operator of a vehicle. Accordingly, it is not intended by the agency's interpretation or regulations to hold a vehicle manufacturer responsible for every situation in which a vehicle is overloaded. Most any type truck can be overloaded by the user. An operator should be aware of this possibility, however, given the amount of space on that vehicle on which cargo can be loaded and the broad range of cargo that can be transported by that vehicle. If a truck designed for the transportation of one specific cargo were misused by the operator to transport another type of cargo not intended by the vehicle manufacturer, then any resultant overloading would be the responsibility of the operator not of the manufacturer. However, when a vehicle designed to transport a specific cargo can be overloaded when filled to its capacity with that cargo, the NHTSA has determined this to be a problem created by the vehicle manufacturer and would consider taking action against a manufacturer to correct the problem. This agency's interpretation that a vehicle be able to safely transport its intended design cargo when fully loaded is an objective and unambiguous requirement and simply places the burden upon a manufacturer to ensure that the design cargo does not exceed the GAWR and GVWR.

Specifically we are concerned that a tank of fixed volumetric capacity could be loaded to exceed the vehicle's GAWR and GVWR values when filled with a commodity of design density simply because of the tank being too large.

When there is reason to believe that the density of a cargo likely to be transported could present a vehicle overloading problem, the manufacturer has a duty to provide a warning and information as a precaution in averting the potential hazard. The NHTSA does not object to the practice of partial loading of tankers and tank compartments for remaining within safe loading limits provided guidelines are furnished by manufacturers for performing approved loading operations. Prescribed precautions hopefully will counteract any tendency to perceive volume as the load limiting criterion. We would agree that loading information as contained in your enclosure would be a satisfactory means of conveying safety information and could be referenced on a conspicuous vehicle label.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

April 18, 1978

Joseph J.-Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This is a response to your letter of July 1, 1977, your file No. NOA-30, written to Mr. Jerry McNeil of American Trailers (ref. other correspondence on the same subject), regarding the act of a user's exceeding a vehicle's GVWR possibly being considered a safety defect.

We take strong exception to this interpretation for several reasons:

(1) Your interpretation assumes a user to be either not knowledgeable or dishonest by overloading a tank with a commodity with too high a density for the tanks total capacity. We must design with the premise that a user is knowledgeable and honest.

(2) Your interpretation excuses overloading of certain types of vehicles but not volumetric type. Whereas overloading is the responsibility of the user, any type vehicle can be intentionally or naively overloaded.

(3) Your interpretation, if strictly enforced, would eliminate the use of one vehicle for more than one density commodity at great expense to the consumer. However, all State and Federal weight laws are written using weight in pounds; there is no reference to density.

(4) Your interpretation is so general that it defies any definitive objective evaluation. It would be impossible to clearly define literally the thousands of load types or combinations of load types that are possible. Your interpretation would hold one party responsible for another party's violation of the law. We doubt that this would hold up in court.

Partial loading of tank vehicles has been a general practice of our industry for over 50 years.

It is done safely and for good reason.

The most common example of partially loaded tanks is the typical 9000 gallon aluminum gasoline tank with 5 compartments. The tank weighs approximately 10,000 pounds and the typical GVWR of a vehicle such as this would be 70,000 lbs. Full loading with gasoline at 6.1 lb./gallon would provide a gross vehicle weight of 64,900 pounds (54,900 lb. of product & 10,000 lb. of tank), well within the vehicle's GVWR.

Partial loading with home heating oil at 7.2 lbs/gallon is achieved by leaving the third tank compartment empty (see attached sketch), reducing the total volume capacity to 7625 gallons and maintaining a gross vehicle weight of 64,900 lbs. - again 54,900 lb. product, 10,000 lbs. of tank.

This double purpose tank is versatile, practical, safe and very common. We estimate the total fleet of 9000 gallons tank to be about 3000 units. There are also many more gasoline tank both larger and smaller than 9000 gallons.

If we understand you correctly, your interpretation is that if an operator loads home heating oil into all five compartments overloading the vehicle and exceeding the gross vehicle rate rating (GVWR), the manufacturer may be held liable for a safety defect and be subject to a recall campaign. If, however, an operator loads a flatbed or van trailer with automobile batteries and causes the same overload and subsequent safety problem, this would not be considered a safety defect. It is just as likely that a volumetric type vehicle body, such as a tank grain trailer or dump truck, etc., could be incorrectly loaded as it is for flatbed trailer.

For instance, a grain trailer is sized to handle a safe legal payload of the lighter grains and have the sides high enough to safely retain the product while in transit. If an operator heaps a load of the heaviest grains he will more than likely exceed not only the GVWR, but also the local state weight laws.

If your interpretation is enforced it would require that we manufacture vehicles for single purpose use which would cause a tremendous duplication of equipment and would be a waste of our natural resources and energy.

You can see that a manufacturer has no control over the loading practices used on his equipment after the vehicle leaves his premises.

We would appreciate very much reconsideration of your position and would welcome the opportunity to make more detailed presentations of our position if you have further questions.

Charles J. Calvin President

PETROLEUM TANK TRAILER

A typical 9000 gallon aluminum petroleum tank trailer conforms to MC 306 and is designed to carry gasoline and/or fuel oil.

(Graphics omitted) Weight Summary Tank weight 10,000 lb GVW Trailer 64,900 lb Payload 54,900 Tractor weight 15,100 GCW 80,000lb

Loading Schedule Compartments Gasoline Fuel Oil Fuel Oil at 6.1 lb/gal at 7.17 lb/gal at 7.17 lb/gal 1 2000 gal 2000 gal 2000 gal 2 1875 gal 1875 gal 1875 gal 3 1350 gal EMPTY 1350 gal 4 1875 gal 1875 gal 1875 gal 5 2000 gal 2000 gal 2000 gal Total payload volume 9000 gal 7625 gal 9000 gal Total payload & trailer 64,900 lb 64,900 lb 74,530 lb GVWR 70,000 lb 70,000 lb 70,000 lb

Improperly loaded trailer results in a loaded weight which exceeds the GVWR by 4530 lb.

ID: nht79-4.16

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA

TO: Management Consulting in Product Assurances

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1979, letter asking how the agency will apply the reporting requirements of Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to equipment manufacturers.

As the agency indicated in the preamble to the final rule, replacement equipment manufacturers that are required to notify owners and to remedy defective or noncomplying equipment would do so to the best of their abilities. The reporting requirement does not require them to manufacture their equipment so that it is easily identifiable nor does it require them to maintain lists of persons to whom equipment has been sold. Some equipment manufacturers may wish to upgrade their recordkeeping and identification systems to facilitate their statutory obligations to recall and remedy, but the reporting regulation does not require this.

With respect to the "flasher" incident to which you refer in your letter, if a vehicle manufacturer authorizes the use of incorrect flashers in its vehicles, problems resulting from the use of those flashers would be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer not the equipment manufacturer. The problem that you describe is one of incorrect use of properly functioning equipment. It is not a problem of defective equipment.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-4.17

DATE: 05/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whether Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of-sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.

SINCERELY,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

April 27, 1979

Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Attached is the information I talked to you on April 27, 1979. Please make any correction or changes so this letter will fall within the D. O. T. guideline.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation

DOT QUALITY GRADES ALL PASSENGER CAR TIRES MUST CONFORM TO FEDERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THESE GRADES TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1-1/2) times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and differences in road characteristics and climate.

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not include cornering (turning) traction.

TEMPERATURE

The temperature grades are A (the highest), B, and C representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. Warning: The temperature grade for this tire is established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure. Tire Size Load Tread Tubeless/ Trd Designation Range Pattern Tube Type Side Wall Wear Traction Temp. 155S13/6.15 $ 13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B B 4PR 155-13/6.15-13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 4PR 165S13/6.45S13 B Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B B 4PR 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B C H78-15 B Y820 Tubeless Black 80 B C

ID: nht79-4.18

DATE: 07/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1979, concerning Subaru's obligation to provide to prospective motor vehicle purchasers an explanation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). You ask whether Subaru must provide UTQG information to prospective purchasers prior to April 1, 1980, in view of the fact that all motor vehicles sold by your company are equipped with radial tires.

With respect to radial tires, the effective date for all requirements of the UTQG regulation, other than the molding requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) and the first purchaser requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(iii), is April 1, 1980. Therefore, manufacturers, such as Subaru, which offer for sale only motor vehicles equipped with radial tires, need not provide UTQG information for examination by prospective purchasers prior to April 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 4, 1979

Richard J. Hipolit -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

In our telephone conversation on Friday, June 1, you confirmed my interpretation of the requirement for the date of publication of "Tire Quality Grading Information" for our prospective purchasers is dependent upon the effective date of the regulation. As we only use radial tires, the grading regulation effective date for which is April 1, 1980, our obligation to issue information to prospective purchasers is also April 1, 1980.

If this is still your opinion will you please confirm this in writing?

Thank you.

Yours very truly,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.;

D. J. Schrum -- Manager Product Compliance

ID: nht79-4.19

DATE: 03/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Michael M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 19, you pointed out that the tire industry has printed tire lables and consumer information materials based on Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), as published in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542; July 17, 1978). That notice contained a typographical error in the text of Figure 2, which was corrected in Notice 31 (44 FR 15721, March 15, 1979) by substitution of the word "are" in place of the word "of" in the first line of the third section of Figure 2.

The labels and other materials printed prior to the issuance of Notice 31 may be technically in noncompliance with the UTQG regulation. To avoid the waste which would result if use of these materials were prohibited, however, NHTSA will permit use of tread labels and information materials containing the Figure 2 text as stated in Notice 24, where orders for printing of these materials were submitted prior to March 15, 1979, the date of publication of Notice 31.

ID: nht79-4.2

DATE: 10/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wanger Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. W. Kourik Chief Engineer, Brake Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis, Missouri 63141

Dear Mr. Kourik:

This responds to your September 17, 1979, letter asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permits manufacturers to install antilock devices on only one axle of a multi-axle vehicle. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the decision in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978); cert. den'd, 439 U.S. 862 (Oct. 2, 1978) invalidated the antilock requirements as they apply to trucks and trailers. Accordingly, the anti-lock provisions of the standard no longer apply to those vehicles. A manufacturer that desires to install anti-lock devices can do so at its own discretion and to any extent that it considers appropriate. This includes the installation of antilock devices on only one axle. Of course, any installation of devices affecting braking must not impair the brake system's compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 17, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Wagner agrees with the NHTSA position recognizing the benefits of antilock in their recommendation that antilock systems on existing vehicles be maintained in proper working condition.

In regard to existing and newly manufactured equipment, Wagner is aware that according to Notice 26 of Docket 75-16 dated 8/9/79:

"...the court's remand (9th District Court of Appeals, PACCAR vs. NHTSA and DOT)...precludes the agency from enforcing compliance with any road test requirement for trucks and trailers at any speed on wet or dry surfaces."

And also, as stated in Notice 01 of Docket 79-03 dated 2/15/79:

"...users...may order antilock according to their choice on new vehicles."

Wagner interprets that it is acceptable for manufacturers to equip fewer than all axles of a multi-axle vehicle for antilock control. Therefore, users who do elect to use antilock may choose, for example, a single anti-lock system for only one axle (in lieu of tandem control or axle-by-axle control) on a tandem axle trailer.

Wagner requests confirmation on our interpretation regarding acceptability of installations where fewer than all axles on a vehicle are under antilock control.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

J. W. Kourik, Chief Engineer Brake Products

JWK:DSQ:san

ID: nht79-4.20

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Federal Trade Commission/PC

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1979, asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has adopted the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) definition of mud and snow tire or has made any official statement regarding the validity of that definition. NHTSA has not adopted the RMA definition for use in any agency regulations, relating either to safety standards or to tire quality grading, nor has NHTSA made any official statement regarding the validity of the definition. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION/PC

SEPTEMBER 11, 1979

Dick Hipolit, Esquire -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Pursuant to our conversation of September 11, 1979, I would appreciate if you would inform me whether N.H.T.S.A. has adopted the industry standard of the Rubber Manufacturers Association's definition of a mud and snow tire or has offered any opinions regarding its validity.

The definition states that: "The characteristics of a mud and snow tire are:

(a) A substantial portion of the lug, block, or rib edges in the tread design are at an angle greater than 30 degrees to the tire circumferential center line.

(b) On at least one side of the tread design, the shoulder lugs protrude at least 1/2" in a direction generally perpendicular to the direction of travel."

The above information may be sent to Jeff Jacobovitz, Federal Trade Commission/PC, 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Jeff Jacobovitz -- Legal Intern, Division of Compliance

ID: nht79-4.21

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1979 asking for clarification of the tire manufacturer's responsibility, as of April 1, 1980, for providing Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) point of sale information for radial tires sold as original equipment on new passenger cars. You also ask what the original equipment tire manufacturer's responsibility will be for providing UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

The UTQG Standards (49 CFR 575.104) require that tire grading information be made available to consumers by several means. Grading information must be molded on the tire sidewall (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), contained in a label affixed to the tread surface (49 CFR 575.104 (d)(1)(i)(B), and furnished under 49 CFR 575.6(a) and (c) to motor vehicle first purchasers and to prospective purchasers of vehicles and tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and (iii)).

For radial tires, the effective date for sidewall molding is October 1, 1980, regardless of whether the tire is sold for use as original equipment on a new vehicle or as a replacement tire. However, the tread labeling requirement, effective April 1, 1980 in the case of radial tires, specifically exempts tires sold as original equipment on new vehicles. Therefore, the tire manufacturer is not responsible for the attachment of UTQG tread labels to tires which are in fact sold for use as original equipment on new vehicles.

Motor vehicle and tire manufacturers are responsible under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and 575.6(c) for providing certain UTQG point of sale information to prospective purchasers of their products. This requirement, which in the case of original equipment tires does not necessitate display of the specific UTQG grades applicable to particular tires; takes effect April 1, 1980, for radial tires.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(iii) and 575.6(a), first purchasers of vehicles equipped with radial tires manufactured after October 1, 1980 must be supplied with an explanation of the UTQG system containing a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for specific UTQG grades. However, responsibility for supplying this information rests with the motor vehicle manufacturer rather than the tire manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

DICK HIPLETT -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir: Would you please clarify for us what the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility will be as of April 1, 1980 regarding point of sales UTQG information for radial tires.

Also, what will the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility be regarding consumer UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

Thank you.

Yours truly, MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group; John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.