ID: nht89-3.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1989

FROM: Jack E. Eanes -- Chief, Vehicles Services, State of Delaware, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-90 to J. E. Eanes from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 205; VSA S.108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT:

I need a legal opinion concerning tinted rear vehicle windows which obscure the rear window mounted brake lights. Delaware law currently allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires.

In my opinion, this law might violate the federal law which mandates the rear window brake light. The light is basically unusable when the window is tinted extremely dark.

ID: nht89-3.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 23, 1989

FROM: Richard J. Sullivan -- Attorney at Law

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Child Riding, Inc. Hideaway Safety Seat

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-7-88 from G.T. Miller to E. Jones (OCC 2652); Also attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R.J. Sullivan (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Enclosed please find a videotape which details the installation of Child Riding, Inc.'s Hideaway Safety Seat.

As we discussed, the corporation has been waiting for a letter of interpretation from NHTSA for over a year clarifying the provisions of Section 4 of CFR571.213 as applied to this product and more specifically the definition of "Specific Vehicle Shell" c ontained therein by which it appears that the built-in seat must be tested in each model of each vehicle in which it is installed.

Several members of the corporations management team met with Mr. Gilkey, Ms. Tillman and various other individuals in your office in or about February, 1989 to demonstrate one of the installed prototypes and to discuss the certification procedure.

As management indicated at that meeting, Child Riding, Inc. is a small business concern with limited funds. An interpretation of the Regulation 213 that would require testing in each and every model of each and every vehicle in which it is installed wou ld, for all intents and purposes, put the company out of business before it could begin operation because of the prohibitive cost of testing (estimated at $10,000 per test by the University of Michigan).

It was managment's distinct impression following the February meeting that NHTSA had failed to take into consideration the possibility that a small business concern might market a built-in seat when it drafted Regulation 213 for built-in child restraint systems and that a review of the regulation would be promptly made consistent with the goals of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L. 96-354) to encourage the development of innovative products by small business concerns.

A follow-up call was made to Ms. Tillman by this office in June of this year and she indicated that an initial draft of a letter of interpretation had been completed.

The corporation expects to have its product available for compliance testing in the very near future and would very much appreciate your efforts in securing an early determination of this matter.

If you require any additional information concerning Child Riding, Inc. and or the "Hideaway Seat" please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

ID: nht89-3.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1989

FROM: Susan Birenbaum -- Acting General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: Stephen Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 to S. Birenbaum from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4); and photos (text omitted); and undated Consumer Product Incident Report for D. Jaeger

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a product manufactured by IG-LO Products and marketed under the brand name "kwik kool" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C. S1391(4)). As you know, section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. S2052(a)(1)(C)) excludes "motor vehicle equipment" from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of th e Consumer Product Safety commission under the CPSA.

The product in question is intended to improve the performance of an automobile's air-conditioner. Copies of the package of the product are enclosed. The warnings and instructions printed on the container of the product are reproduced on the second pag e of the enclosed report of a consumer complaint concerning this product.

The labeling and packaging of the product indicate that the product is intended for use with a motor vehicle and for no other purpose. The directions on the package and container also indicate that the product is intended to be used primarily by the ope rator of a motor vehicle. Previous correspondence from your office suggests that the product under consideration would fall within the definition of "motor vehicle equipment" codified at 15 U.S.C. S1391(4). However, the individual who made the enclosed complaint has told a member of the Commission staff that when he registered a similar complaint with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, he was advised that the product is not subject to your agency's authority.

If your office concludes that the product is not an item of "motor vehicle equipment," we would appreciate a response to that effect. If you conclude that it is motor vehicle equipment, please forward the enclosed complaint to the appropriate staff of y our agency.

Section 6(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. S2055(b)), requires that before the Commission may release information about a product identified by manufacturer, it must first provide the manufacturer of the product with a summary of the information and an opportun ity to comment on its accuracy. However, section 29(e) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. S2078(e)) authorizes the Commission to provide information about products to other agencies of the Federal Government without having followed the procedure required by section 6(b), provided that the agency receiving the information does not disclose it to the general public.

The information in this letter about the product under consideration is subject to the provisions of section 6(b) of the CPSA. The Commission has not provided the manufacturer with either a summary of this information or the opportunity to comment on it s accuracy. For this reason, I request your assistance in not disclosing it to the general public.

If you need additional information about this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter and our other recent inquiries.

ID: nht89-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARK F. HOLMES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980; LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violatio n of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in pro gress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 1381 and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Ref lective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view

mirror required by Standard No. 111, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We a re unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108, the center lamp may not b e combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equ ipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance w ith Standard No. 111, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 3994; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLA TION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR @ 575.104). In that ear lier interpretation, the agency was asked by E. H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See @@ 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' trac tion grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the b ackground of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars se ts forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure . . . shall b e followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pre ssure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR @ 575. 104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- VICE PRESIDENT PRODUCT COMPLIANCE SERVICE AND PARTS MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA TO STEPHEN P. WOOD; REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; OCC 3823

TEXT: Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bu lb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. 108 will permit, as of December 1, 1989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp bo dy, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely

ID: nht89-3.27

ID: nht89-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PRODUCT ENGINEERING MANAGER IDEAL DIVISION PARKER HANNAFIN CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PARKER HANNIFIN TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 3309

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office. I regret the delay in responding. You express your understanding that Standard No. 108 "allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated." You have expressed these two modes as follows:

"1. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on."

You ask for confirmation of your understanding, and if it is correct, whether NHTSA is presently considering rulemaking "to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switche s are actuated."

Neither of these modes are correct, for the reasons discussed below. Initially we note that systems with combined-function lamps are those that use red lenses for the rear turn signals lamps, and not the amber lenses that Standard No.

108 allows. The second point we wish to make is that you may have confused hazard warning lamps with turn signal lamps. The basic Federal requirements for stop lamps are those of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, which is incorporated by refe rence in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 4.2 of J586c states "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." The identical provision is found in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, which is also incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. This clearly means that a turn signal cannot be overriden by a stop lamp. In addition, you should note that re gulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety forbid the optical combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp unless the stop lamp function is deactivated when the turn signal lamp is activated (49 CFR 393.22(b)(2 ).

Assuming, however, that you meant hazard warning system lamps, there is no provision in Standard No. 108 for hazard warning system operation (those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February 1968, incorporated by r eference in Standard No. 108) specifying priority of operation with respect to the stop lamp system. Because paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, we interpret this as allowi ng the stop lamp system to override the hazard warning system. This opinion, of course, relates only to the rear lamps. The hazard warning system at the front of a vehicle must operate at any time the system is actuated.

In response to your question about the possibility of rulemaking, please note that the agency does not plan any rulemaking on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK & LEVIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN TO NHTSA, RE SUN ROOFS; OCC 3625

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR @ 567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You as ked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a r epair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR @ 571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles . Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof C rush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by @ 567.4 or @ 567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of a ll applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all appl icable safety standards, in accordance with @ 567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" ar e not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable componen t" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle saf ety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that g enerally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a re pair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in pa rt, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, . . ."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the

requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act . If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles afte r the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,