ID: nht89-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/89

FROM: DONALD S. CLARK -- SECRETARY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

TO: BUD SHUSTER -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/20/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARDS 109, 117, AND 119; LETTER DATED 8/8/89 FROM CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS -- DEPARTMENT OF C OMMERCE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shuster:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter on behalf of Mr. Lester Hoover to the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Hoover contacted your office for assistance in obtaining a copy of any regulations pertaining to presale disclosure of grading in formation on automobile tires.

I have enclosed a copy of the Commission's 1967 Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides, 16 C.F.R. Part 228, which, inter alia, call for certain disclosures in the sale of blemished, imperfect, or defective tires (Section 228.11) and in the sale of retre ads and used tires (Section 228.9). These are the only regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission that focus specifically on tires, although other regulations and statutes of general application (such as Section 5 of the FTC Act, which the Commission enforces) cover tires along with other products.

It may interest Mr. Hoover to know that failure to comply with the Guides is not a per se law violation. Rather, as Section 228.0-1 states, the Guides set forth general principles that the Commission applies in determining whether given representatio ns or other practices concerning tires constitute violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The remedy for a violation of Section 5 is generally an administrative cease and desist order, rather than the monetary civil penalties which may be obtained in cases involving violation of a Commission order or Trade Regulation Rule.

There may be other tire regulations that would be of interest to Mr. Hoover. I have therefore taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your inquiry to the Department of Transportation for further review and response.

Please let me know whenever I can be of service.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht89-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: NANCY L. BRUCE -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DOT

TO: THE HONORABLE GEORGE MILLER -- MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/1/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 10/12/89 FROM GEORGE MILLER, U.S. CONGRESSMAN TO NANCY BRUCE -- D.O.T. OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS; LE TTER DATED 10/4/89 FROM DELL RANDLE TO CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; LETTER DATED 9/8/89 FROM ELIZABETH M. LUCAS -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TO DELL RANDLE OF SHIKARI CONSULTANT FIRM LTD.

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Dell Randle.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: BRAKING DISTANCE TEST & LABORATORIES USED BY D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS; A35; STANDARD 105

TEXT: We have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 and George Parker, Compliance Testing, regarding our product i.e. Gyroscopic Wheel Cover and in doing so, Dr. Carl Clark suggested we request a letter from your department specific ally outlining the requirements of the braking test used and a list of the various testing facilities used by the D.O.T., when testing a product for this purpose.

In lieu of the D.O.T. actually testing our product, we are requesting a letter from your office stating the FMVSS (571.105) Stopping Distance Test guidelines and a list of laboratories acceptable by the D.O.T., that could be used to test our product.

Is this a Proper Example? - SAE J299 Stopping Distance Test

Our intention is to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document our product's tests results in compliance with the D.O.T. testing standards.

Please return a copy of the specific guidelines used for this kind of test and a list of the acceptable laboratories as soon as possible.

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas Mayes, President CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

Encl: Brochure, introduction, VHS

CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

"THE GYROSCOPIC WHEEL COVERS"

Introduction

This unique product was invented by Mr. Kim Rush, of Anaheim, California. An extensive amount of research has been completed with various governmental and independent testing laboratories in order to substantiate several claims as to the positive effect s this product has on several performances of a vehicle. There are locking devices attached to keep the product from coming off or being stolen off the vehicle. There are several different designs or looks that can be manufactured into the facial appear ances of the wheel cover.

There has been extensive market studies completed on the number of new automobiles being manufactured, estimates on the number of vehicles already in service and operating in the U.S. and foreign countries, as well as some future market projections. Thi s number includes vehicles in fleet service, municipalities, cab companies, etc. In addition, a study or overview of competitive products marketed as a "gas saving device", and "devices that improve automobile highway safety", has been made.

Market Viability

It is important to note that any sales figures would just educated projections only and the potential results of any extensive marketing program is dependent upon a variety of external factors, such as:

* Consumer perceptions of the product

* Retail price

* The distribution structure

* Advertising strategies

* Competition

* Ability of the product to perform as promised

This kind of quality product by providing the safety features and handling enhancements that it does, should be important to everyone, including the government. As an added bonus, this product gives the consumer an actual investment payback on his or he r purchase within a very reasonable period of time in gas savings, extended tire wear, longer shocks and brake life and most importantly the safety benefits to family members and passengers when this unique product is installed on the family and/or busin ess car.

There are huge economic benefits to large fleet owners as well. When this product is used by a whole population of people, this product could have a substantial effect on helping us get through a gasoline shortage.

Product Description & Function

The Gyroscopic Wheel Cover model #1 is very similar in appearance to the conventional fancy spoke wheel covers currently being offered on a variety of expensive new domestic and imported automobiles in the after market. There are 13", 14" and 15" config urations and this unique product is designed to fit almost 95% of all wheels manufactured today. The steel spokes model is made from heavy 12 gauge metal and the spokes are cushion mounted at a 6 degree pitch. As the wheel rotates to a speed of 10-15 m iles per hour, the centrifugal force causes the spokes to flex in and expand, forming a disc.

The magnitude of the rotational force creates a gyroscopic effect which increases wheel stability, creates some 80 foot pounds of inertia or downward pressure at the kiss point of each tire, maximizing road contact, giving better transaction in rain and snow and greater road stability at all times.

The wheel cover can be manufactured in a variety of various type configurations and levels of ornamentation. A specific public demand for design and style can easily be met.

Situational Analysis

The U.S. consumer is at present time able to purchase gasoline at a reasonable price, but will this condition stay that way. Not according to some reports. The public is looking for more ways to save money and conserve energy. Starting in 1980, as you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for U.S. automobile manufacturers, setting a minimum average fuel economy requirement based upon the manufacturer's total vehicle production. The aver age standard for 1990 is 26 mpg for car manufacturers. The net result forces the auto makers into building smaller cars, smaller engines in the efforts to develop fuel saving methods and whether we like it or not, exposing the buying public to some new dangers, by having less automobile or metal between you and all the other driving public. The next change is plastic engines.

European markets

The foreign car market is an exciting opportunity, especially when gasoline is priced around $ 2.30 per gallon in Europe, and when these users can add 16-20% annually to their fuel economy, that can amount to a lot of dollar savings, as well as energy sa vings. This product could be our part of the overall effort to conserve their energy resources.

Added Safety when using Product.

This product can improve your chances against having an accident in your car while these wheel covers are on your automobile. These wheel covers provide for quicker stops, better handling, less swaying in turns, better stability, lessens greatly the cha nce of hydroplaning in water and snow. We are presently in the process of contacting the insurance industry to try and obtain a auto insurance premium reduction when these wheel covers have been installed. Creative Products expects additional tests wil l have to be performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to substantiate our claims and be able to offer a possible discount. Braking tests prove that this product reduces the stopping distance for automobiles by as much as 10% or more at 55 mph. A set of wheel covers in providing better traction, better stopping and handling capabilities will give the consumer more control, thus less wrecks in all kinds of weather.

Market Opportunities

There are almost two hundred million automobiles in the U.S., or over 40% of the world's totals. Owners with new and used automobiles that need this product and would desire a set of these wheel covers for their car. The U.S. market alone for this prod uct today may exceed $ 10,000,000,000.00, the European market may be just as good with a higher percentage of users. Fleet owners, new car manufacturers would be very interested in this product for their cars, vans and trucks.

Product Costs and Savings At todays' prices, a set of nice wheel covers may cost $ 350.00 or more and they obviously do nothing more for your car than looks. Certainly nothing for saving gas, tire wear or safety. This product will be offered for sale to distributors around the world and the retail price will probably be in the range of $ 350-$ 400 for a set of four. Sizes come in 13", 14", or 15", this price range would not be out of line with the standard priced wheel covers for the more expensive automobiles.

The actual money saved by a consumer when using this product for instances could be if presently they are using; (1) 110 U.S. gallons/mo., (2) getting 18 mpg of gas on the average, (3) the price of gas is at $ 1.20 cost per gallon, (4) when driving 24,00 0 miles of annually, using this product will provide the owner with an annual savings of $ 200.00 or 16% of his total gas bill. Saving this amount of money annually is very attractive to the average consumer and when taking into the consideration the ad ditional benefit of an extended tire life, the consumer gets all of his or her money back in the first year.

CONCLUSION

Creative Products believes this wheel cover will provide several new safety advantages to anyone buying this product. You have to drive your car with a set of these wheel covers on to believe the difference it makes. With this product installed on any car, you will experience a whole new dimension of safety driving in all kinds of adverse weather.

gyroscopic wheel covers[trademark]

energy efficient . . . money saver . . . greater road safety

increase mileage

increase tire life

increase brake life

increase traction in snow

filmed tests indicate vehicle braking reduced by fifteen feet at 55 m.p.h

ID: nht89-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/89

FROM: JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

TO: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- ACTING ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FR OM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETTER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

Enclosed is a letter from Congresswoman Morella inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations regarding the tinting of windows for valid medical reasons. I request your comments, including whether regulatory relief is possible and w ise. Please provide a copy of your reply to the Congresswoman.

With best wishes.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1989

FROM: M. IWASE -- GENERAL MANAGER, TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: VEHICLE HEADLAMP AIMING DEVICE (DOCKET NO. 85-15; NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 1990 TO M. IWASE FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES AND LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE. TEXT:

We would like to again ask your interpretation of FMVSS 108 concerning Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD).

In responding to our question dated April 8, 1988, you kindly gave us the interpretation dated September 12, 1988, for which thank you very much.

At that stage the provision of VHAD were just a proposal (Notice 5). On May 9, 1989, a final rule (Notice 8) of the VHAD has been issued.

Therefore, at this stage when the final rule has been issued, we would again ask and confirm your interpretation, as shown in the attached sheets.

Upon your kind review to the above matters, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Encl. Our previous letter of inquiry dated April 8, 1988 Your responding letter dated September 12, 1988.

ATTACHMENTS

BACKGROUND

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, we asked about a detachable spirit level which is installed in the socket by removing a bulb. In responding to our inquiry the agency stated in a letter dated September 12, 1988, as follows;

"----- Although the proposal does not specifically prohibit this feature, the test procedures do not anticipate a VHAD design where the light source would be removed and replaced with the VHAD."

On account of your advice we recently made some design modification on our detachable spirit level, as shown below: Detachable Spirit Level (Koito's New Design) [GRAPHICS OMITTED] 1) Detachable spirit level is mounted onto a headlamp housing. (Headlamp shall be aimed with bulb remaining in the socket.)

2) Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be remove to another (the other side) headlamp for aiming it. We are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle, which results in a significant cost saving.

QUESTION:

Could the above detachable spirit level be accepted to the requirements of S7.7.5.2 "On-vehicle aiming" in FMVSS No. 108 ?

KOITO'S VIEW:

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 "Aimability Performance", and found that the following provision is specified in S7.7.5.2(c)(1) - "Testing the VHAD";

"The headlamp assembly (the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism) shall be mounted on a level goniometer,

The above provision in the final rule (Notice 8) allows a detachable spirit level, we think.

Structure-2: Detachable Spirit Level [GRAPHICS OMITTED]

1) Spirit level is not permanently fixed onto headlamps.

2) Spirit level is built into bulb gauge.

3) When aiming adjusted, bulb is moved out and Bulb gauge is mounted into reflector socket.

4) Bulb gauge is provided for each vehicle as a standard part.

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,