ID: 1983-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/10/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VREDUSA -- Anthony Lavro, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 279 Somerset, New Jersey 08873

Dear Mr. Lauro:

This responds to your recent letter asking if you can legally sell certain tires you have imported from the Netherlands. These truck tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall but do not have a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure labeled on the sidewall.

Under Federal law, these tires cannot be sold or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce because they do not comply with all requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119). Paragraph S6.5(d) of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) requires that a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure be labeled on both sidewalls of each tire subject to the standard. The tires described in your letter plainly do not meet this requirement. Hence, the DOT symbol on those tires is misleading, since that symbol is supposed to be a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 119.

Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) specifies that no person shall sell or introduce into interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment (which includes tires) unless the item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) sets forth a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, if they were offered for sale or introduced into interstate commerce.

At this point, you have two legal courses of action open to you. You may have the tire manufacturer file a petition requesting an exemption from the noncompliance of these tires, arguing that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to the safety of the tires. The procedures to be followed in filing a petition for an inconsequential noncompliance are set forth in the enclosed copy of 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance. I cannot state at this time that the absence of maximum load information would be viewed as inconsequential, but we would certainly give full consideration to any petition the manufacturer might submit. If the petition were granted, you could sell these tires.

The other course of action available to you is to ship these tires back to the manufacturer in the Netherlands and explain that they do not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 119. I appreciate your efforts to ensure that you are complying with all applicable Federal regulations with respect to the sale of tires you import.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of Chief Council NHTSA - Room 5219 400 - 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Recently I spoke with a Mr. Steve Kratsky, of your office concerning an opinion I desire. Mr. Kratsky advised that I write a letter to your office so that I could receive a written opinion.

I am an importer of a line of tires manufactured in Holland. On my last container I received some light truck radial tires which did not have the maximum inflation or maximum load capacity imprinted on the sidewall. The tires do have a D.O.T. number.

My question is: Can I still sell these tires to a wholesale, retail or user customer?

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President

ID: 1983-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."

I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".

I hope this answers you question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1983

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.

As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.

I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.

I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.

Thank you very much for your help and consideration.

Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment

ID: nht88-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JERRY SWISHER, -- COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/20/88 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA FROM JERRY SWISHER, RE REQUEST FOR OPINION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Swisher:

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if either of three proposed courses of action would comply with the labeling requirements specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109. That section reads as follows: "Each tire shall be labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or the brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574." None of your proposed courses of action would satisfy this requirement, as explained below.

You first asked if it is permissible to have no identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or the brand name owner, but to simply use the identification numbers assigned to Cooper Tire under Part 574. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No . 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. Tires that are identified solely by an identification number would not comply with this requiremen t.

Second, you asked if a tire could be labeled with three different brand names. Section S4.3.2 uses the singular tense to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of the manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive "or." This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be c onfused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire. Accordingly, S4.3.2 prohibits Cooper from selling passenger car tires labeled with the names of three different brand name owners.

Third, you asked if a generic term such as "All Season" or "Performance" would satisfy the requirement of S4.3.2 that either the name of the manufacturer or a brand name be labeled on the tires. Clearly, a generic term like "Performance" is not the "nam e of the manufacturer," Cooper in this case.

The "brand name" refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls t hat is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). My understanding of this proposed course of action is that the tires would be advertised and sold at retail as tires made by one of the three brand name owners, presumably using its brand name, not under the name "All Season" or "Performance." Therefore, these generic terms would not be considered brand names for the purposes of section S4.3 .2.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: REQUEST FOR EVALUATION/INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION: "SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STO P FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LET TER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: The Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF) would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During routine decelerations, the brake lights would function normally. However, at unusual or "unexpectedly" high deceleration rates, such as when a driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF would utilize a pendulum-type accelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometime attempt to do themselves to warn the driver behind but only when they have time).

To make the effective flash rate even higher, the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the two lower lights flashing simultaneously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on Interstate highways when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result i n ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would be especially applicable, I believe, to automobiles equipped with anti-skid brakes. Ironically, cars with anti-skid brakes may become involved in accidents because of their superior braking performance when the car behind them crashes i nto them because the car behind is not equipped with anti-skid brakes and therefore cannot match the braking performance. The SSF could provide the extra 2-or 3- second warning which could be the difference between a controlled stop and a disastrous cra sh.

A special feature would be the "Crash Lock-Up Mode." This feature would cause the system to "lock-up" in the rapid warning flash sequence mode whenever an "impact-level" (i.e., an actual crash) is encountered. When drivers have an accident, they are often confused and disoriented and consequently fail to take measures to warn other drivers - such as turn on the hazard warning flashers. The Crash Lock-Up feature would automatically send out a continuous warning when an actual crash occurs, thus possi bly preventing yet another crash. The Crash Lock-Up would remain actuated until the ignition switch is recycled. This feature would be especially helpful if a crash occurred on a foggy night or when the visibility is otherwise poor.

The actual point or g-level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined by testing and the units would be preset and sealed at the factory. I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for up-grades or down-grades. The system would act uate somewhat later on an upgrade and somewhat earlier on a downgrade, which would be inherently appropriate. Likewise, I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for the size of the automobile because the deceleration level would be the criti cal factor, regardless of the size or weight of the automobile.

ID: nht90-4.73

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Walters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-8-90 from W.G. Walters to E. Jones (OCC 5327); Also attached to article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted); Also attached to United States Patent Information for Paten t Number 4,922,225, dated May 1, 1990, (text and graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1990, to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide "the reason why this system is not being used."

The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, 1990, for an "Automobile Warning Light Improvement." The purpose of the "Improvement" is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have th e potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mo de when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed.

The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamp s, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that "The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." In addition, the effect of paragraph S5. 5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other tha n steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. 108.

The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion . Use of a flashing stop lamp,

mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the messa ge sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn.

we appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention.

ID: 22311new

Mr. Takashi Yoshie
General Manager
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036





Dear Mr. Yoshie:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Specifically, you state that you believe that S7.11, Brake Power Unit or Brake Power Assist Unit Inoperative (System Depleted), of Standard No. 135 does not require a human test driver to apply the brake during the test, and that a brake testing unit may be used by vehicle manufacturers for in-house testing and by NHTSA for compliance testing. The issues you raise are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

We expect manufacturers to have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Under current law, certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, or computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written; i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service and parking brake systems in order to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions. It applies to passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States on or after September 1, 2000, and to multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. The test procedures for vehicles equipped with one or more brake power units or brake power assist units

are set forth in S7.11 of the standard. These procedures specify that the load applied to the brakes is less than or equal to 500 N (112.4 pounds).

You state that Toyota has observed large testing variability between test drivers with respect to the load that is applied during the S7.11 test. To reduce this variability, Toyota has developed a brake testing unit (BTU) that applies a pre-determined load onto the brake pedal to allow for consistent and repeatable brake applications. You state that for purposes of the test specified in S7.11, the BTU can be programmed to apply a load of, for example, 490 N to ensure that the 500 N limit is not exceeded. You believe that the use of a BTU complies with the test procedures set forth in S7.11 of Standard No. 135.

You are correct that Standard No. 135 does not specify that a human test driver be used to apply the brake during the S7.11 test. I note, however, that NHTSA does not currently have any plans to use a BTU in conducting compliance tests.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.3/8/01

ID: 1985-03.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mike Landgraf -- Land Design Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike Landgraf Land Design Group 685 Lakebird Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning Federal regulations that might affect a cargo system for hatch back cars that you are developing. You requested confidentiality for your specific product description and drawing. Since your design has not been marketed as yet, we are granting your request for confidentiality. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have not issued any standard that directly applies to a cargo system such as yours. However, use of your system could be affected by Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors) which sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard and an information sheet discussing the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers under our regulations is enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 111 provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle. Thus, if your product were installed in a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer prior to its sale to a consumer, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard No. 111.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 . . . .

Thus, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your product to a used vehicle and if its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to install an outside passenger side mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Thus, under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any equipment they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that equipment would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the performance requirements of Standard No. 111. They would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable State laws.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 86-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dewayne A. Knoshaug, Esq. -- Knoshaug and Poppen Law Firm

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dewayne A. Knoshaug, Esq. Knoshaug & Poppen Law Firm 118 Central Avenue East Clarion, Iowa 50525

This is in reply to your letter of November 1 1985, to this agency asking about the legality of an "auxiliary rear novelty lamp" which a client of yours anticipates manufacturing and marketing. You stated that the lamp "would light when applying the brakes and optional would be when using turn signals. The light would be amber, red or yellow". You have assured us that the lamp is not intended to be a substitute for or to alter the center high-mounted stop lamp.

It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer absent a fuller description of this device, its light output, flash rate, and other features. As a general rule, aftermarket lighting equipment not intended as replacement for equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is not itself covered by Standard No. 108, but is subject only to the laws of a State where it will be used.

However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view a conflicting signal from an auxiliary lighting device as one which could render "partially inoperative" a required lighting device. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business which installed such a device might be viewed as in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).

General as my reply is, I hope that it is of some guidance to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

November 1, 1985

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Re : Auxiliary Rear Automobile Lamp

Greetings:

I represent a client who anticipates manufacturing and marketing auxiliary rear novelty lamps for automobiles. The primary reason for this letter is to make inquiry of whether same may violate any federal regulation.

I am knowledgeable of the regulation which requires installation of a single center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in addition to the stop lamps otherwise required. Although similar, the stop lamp proposed by my client would in no way be marketed to be a substitute or to alter the required single center high mounted stop lamp.

The lamp to be produced by my client could be similarly used on vehicles manufactured prior to September 1, 1985 and not equipped with the required lamp. In addition, the lamp could be used on vehicles otherwise equipped with the required lamp as an auxiliary lamp.

The lamp proposed by my client would light when applying the brakes and optional would be when using turning signals . The light would be amber, red or yellow.

I request your response advising whether or not there is any federal rule or regulation that would be violated by using such a light on a passenger motor vehicle.

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,

Dewayne A. Knoshaug DAK:jkj

ID: 86-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert R. Gregg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 13, 1986 Mr. Robert R. Gregg Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc. 144 Railroad Avenue Suite 215 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Gregg: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119). Specifically, you asked if a motorcycle could have its maximum load capacity labeled on the sidewall as follows: At 60 MPH Max load lbs. at psi cold. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119, as explained below. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5(d) requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires as follows: Max load lbs at psi cold. No speed rating or restriction may be given in conjunction with the maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tire. That rating, as its name implies, is intended to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. A manufacturer may label a speed restriction on its tires to alert consumers to the tire's maximum speed if that maximum is 55 miles per hour (mph) or less. Section S6.5(e) permits speed restrictions of 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of the tire as follows: Max speed mph. However, this provision of Standard No. 119 would not allow you to assign a speed restriction of 60 mph to these motorcycle tires. First, no speed restriction in excess of 55mph may be assigned to any tires; see Table III in Standard No. 119. Second, all motorcycle tires are subject to the high speed test, regardless of any speed restrictions; see S6.3 of Standard No. 119. During the high speed test, the tire is subjected to speeds up to and including 85 mph. Parenthetically, I should add that even if speed restrictions of more than 55 mph were allowed, this particular tire would not be a candidate for a speed restriction of 60 mph. You stated in your letter that these tires actually are assigned an H speed rating. Under the speed rating system used in Europe, an H speed rating on a motorcycle tire means the tire is capable of being used at speeds up to 130 mph. Assuming you have used the speed rating accurately, there is no basis for implying that these tires are not capable of speeds greater than 60 mph.

As stated above, the purpose of the maximum load ratings is to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. The agency knows that the maximum load that can safely be carried by a tire varies with the speed at which the tire is driven. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify a maximum load based on an artificial speed restriction of 60 mph would result in the tires being overloaded if the consumer were to exceed 60 mph. Overloaded tires are substantially more likely to experience a tire failure than properly loaded tires. Since the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 119 is to provide consumers with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the tires, the standard does not permit tire manufacturers to provide information that will result in the tires being overloaded whenever an artificial speed restriction is exceeded. If you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 2104y

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Deputy Director, Tire Division
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

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 earlier 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' traction 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 background 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 sets 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 be 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 pressure 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,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: E. H. Galloway Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility P.O. Box 1671 San Angelo, TX 76902

ref:109#575 d:ll/l/89