ID: 86-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/86

FROM: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY; DEAN HANSELL -- LAW OFFICE OF DONOVAN LEISURE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 103 AND 104

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/29/86, TO STEPHEN J WAIMEY FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4) STANDARD 103 AND 104

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We write on behalf of Porsche to verify our understanding of a portion of FMVSS 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems) and 104 (Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems). Our question concerns the method of determining the areas to be included in calculating the percentages required to be wiped or defrosted under FMVSS 103 and 104.

Porsche is considering a windshield design that would be 5% smaller than the "A" area, as defined by the angles set forth in SAE J903c (Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems) and SAE J902b (Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems). Our understanding is that, for the purpose of determining compliance with the percentages of the "A" area required to be wiped or defrosted under FMVSS 103 and 104, the percentages are based on the actual windshield size (less a one inch border) rather than the theoretical size that is derived from an abstract application of the specified angles in the SAE procedures.

Our conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE J903c, which is incorporated into FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, and SAE J902b, which is incorporated in FMVSS 103, S4.2. Both SAE J903c and J902b provide that "the areas used in determining the percentage of [wiped or defrosted] area are

those areas on the exterior glazing surface which are not within 1 (one) inch of the edge of the daylight opening." Thus, it is only the area that falls on the windshield itself, and excluding a one inch border at the outer edge of the exterior glazing surface, that need be used in calculating the appropriate percentages.

If our interpretation is correct, then any part of Area A (as determined by the given angles) that falls outside the windshield's physical area is immaterial.

A prompt response would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Yours truly,

ID: 06-007784as

ID: nht79-3.11

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education, State of Mississippi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federal law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 ("the Act"), 15 U.S.C. et seq., the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000, pounds or less or (3) school buses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.

New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.

Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standard as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before the standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:

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 . . . .

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline powered school bus (a vehicle type covered by the standard) to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since this standard does not apply to butane or propane powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.

This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacturer, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.

Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system is installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

State of Mississippi DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

May 7, 1979

Roger Tilton -- U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Reference is made to your conversation with Mr. Walter Corban, Supervisor of Pupil Transportation, Mississippi State Department of Education, last week regarding the use of butane and propane gas in the operation of school buses in this state. Would you please provide me with answers to the following questions?

1. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting a new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane or propane?

2. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting an older school bus chassis which is not equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane and propane?

Your prompt reply to these questions will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leonard Cain, Director -- School Building and Transportation

ID: Legg1

ID: Underwood.1

Mr. Glenn Underwood
AGC Automotive-Americas
Quality Assurance, CQE
1 Auto Glass Drive (P.O. Box 5000)
Elizabethtown, KY 42702-5000




Dear Mr. Underwood:

This responds to your September 29, 2004, letter in which you requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the requirements for marking glazing with an AS1 symbol, which signifies the point above or below which the glazing has light transmissibility greater than or equal to 70 percent. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1. Accordingly, prior to sale, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

However, as your letter points out, NHTSA is in the process of modifying the regulatory requirements under FMVSS No. 205, by shifting from the currently referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980) to the 1996 version of that ANSI standard. A final rule to effect this change was issued on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964). However, subsequent notices were issued extending the compliance date for the final rule, most recently to September 1, 2006 (see 69 FR 51188 (August 18, 2004)). As part of the final rule, the paragraph S3.1, Application, was modified to make the standard apply to both vehicles and equipment; accordingly, once in effect, both vehicle manufacturers and glazing manufacturers will be required to certify that their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

As your letter correctly points out, the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1 requires a slightly different symbol for marking AS1 glazing than did the earlier versions. Under the earlier versions, that glazing would be marked as A↓S1, but under the 1996 version, that glazing would

be marked as AS↓1. (Some glazing also may have portions requiring a similar mark with an arrow turned upwards, but the change in sequencing of the letters and symbol would be the same. )

Beginning on the compliance date of September 1, 2006, glazing manufacturers must mark glazing covered by the above-discussed requirement with the AS1 symbol that meets the specifications of the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1. However, prior to that time, glazing manufacturers may produce and certify glazing with the AS1 symbol that meets the specifications of the 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980). Similarly, on September 1, 2006, vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles, including installed glazing, meet the new requirements.

As a practical matter, during the period immediately preceding September 1, 2006, glazing could be manufactured and certified by the glazing manufacturer under the older version of ANSI Z26.1 but be held in inventory beyond that date, and as a result, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to install such glazing in a vehicle because the newer versions of ANSI Z26.1 then would be in effect. We expect that this would be a one-time problem of brief duration. However, the agency will consider this issue in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the July 25, 2003 final rule, since several petitions raised the issue of the effective date of the final rule.

Nevertheless, we believe that the final rule itself provides a solution to the concern you have identified. As noted in the July 25, 2003 final rule (see 68 FR 43964, 43970) and in paragraph S3.1 of the August 18, 2004 final rule (see 60 FR 51188, 51191), for motor vehicles and glazing equipment manufactured before September 1, 2006, a manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the revised standard (i.e. , using the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1) instead of the current version of FMVSS No. 205 (i.e. , using the 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 supplemented by Z26.1a-1980). We believe that this provision for voluntary early compliance would allow you to resolve any concerns you or your customers might have regarding appropriate marking with the AS1 symbol during this period of transition.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
12/1/04

ID: 1984-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/84 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Truck Equipment Association -- Steven D. Herringshaw, Coordinator of Technical Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steven D. Herringshaw Coordinator of Technical Services National Truck Equipment Association 25900 Greenfield Road Oak Park, Michigan 48257

Dear Mr. Herringshaw:

This is in response to your letter of February 24, 1984, with respect to mounting requirements for clearance and identification lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your Exhibit A depicts a body mounted on a chassis-cab, with clearance lamps mounted both on the body and chassis-cab, but identification lamps mounted on only the chassis-cab. You have asked whether the truck body must have a set of identification lamps in order to meet Standard No. 108. The answer is yes. In order to comply with the requirements that identification lamps be located as closely as practicable to the top of the vehicle, a set of identification lamps must be provided for the truck body. You may be interested to know that there is a pending proposal which was published on February 22, 1982; a vehicle such as shown in Exhibit A would comply with a single set cf identification lamps mounted on the cab. enclose a copy of the proposal. The agency has taken no further action with respect to it.

In comparing the vehicles in Exhibit A and Exhibit B you have asked whether theone in Exhibit A is "compliant with the intentions of FMVSS 108." As I have just explained, this vehicle is currently noncompliant with the standard, but would comply if the proposal were adopted. The vehicle in Exhibit B meets the standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 24, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs:

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) is a national trade association representing over 900 members of the truck body and truck equipment industry. Our members include manufacturers and distributors of truck bodies, chassis, and every imaginable type of truck accessories and equipment.

On behalf of one of our members, a rather substantial manufacturer of van bodies designed to be mounted on a chassis-cab, we would like to request a ruling or official interpretation cf FMVSS 108, Lights. The bodies in question are at least 80 inches wide, so that the vehicles do require both clearance and identification lamps. The issue being questioned is the clause "...as high as practicable".

Following are some specifics on both the bodies and the chassis. -- The bodies range from approximately 81 inches wide to 102 inches wide. -- The bodies range in height from 18 inches above the top of the cab to 75 inches above the cab (on a 13' 6" vehicle). -- The bodies range from 8 feet to 28 feet in length. -- The chassis used with the bodies in question come equipped from the manufacturer with both clearance and identification lights mounted on the roof of the cab.

The question being posed is: "If the chassis is equipped with clearance and identification lights, and the front of the body is equipped with clearance lights mounted at the highest point and the widest point of the vehicle (see exhibit A), is this a compliant vehicle with FMVSS 108, or does the body require an additional set of identification lights on its front end?"

FMVSS 108 allows the clearance lights on the front of the vehicle to be lower than the top of the vehicle if the widest point is lower (see exhibit B). FMVSS 108 also allows the rear clearance lights to be lower if the identification lights are at the top. The NTEA opinion in the past has been that the vehicle in exhibit A is a safer vehicle than the vehicle in exhibit B, and that the overallsize of the vehicle in exhibit A would be more easily recognizable to approaching motorists than a vehicle with lower clearance lights. This would seem to make vehicle A compliant with the intentions of FMVSS 108. Is this a just opinion?

One additional piece of information which may or may not be relevant is that the cost difference to the final customer could be upwards of $100 without the additional I.D. lights.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours Truly,

Steven D. Herringshaw Coordinator of Technical Services

ID: firestonelaser-2

Michael D. Kane
Vice President, Quality Assurance
Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.
535 Marriott Drive
Nashville, TN 37214

Dear Mr. Kane:

This responds to your question whether laser etching of the tire identification number (TIN) date code is permitted by the tire marking and tire labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139 and 49 CFR 574.5, respectively, that go into effect on September 1, 2004. You raised these questions in an April 29, 2003 meeting with us and in a letter of the same date. As explained below, the answerto your question is "yes."

Beginning September 1, 2004, paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139, "Tire Markings," requiress that each tire must be "marked" with certain information and that "the tire identification and DOT symbol labeling must comply with part 574" of 49 CFR. With respect to the TIN in particular, S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 requires that "each tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard side of the tire." Part 574.5 requires that "each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously labelby permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The TIN contains the manufacturers identification code, the tire size, an optional manufacturer code, and a 4-digit date code representing the week and year of manufacturer. In comments on the Tire Safety Information rulemaking, the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) had stated that, under the new labeling requirements, molding the date code portion of the TIN on the intended outboard side of the tire would make it necessary for technicians to change the date code plate in the upper half of the tire mold on a weekly basis.

You state that Bridgestone/Firestone has been exploring the possibility of using laser technology as a means of etching the tire identification number into the tire sidewall. This process would involve a diode pumped, solid state laser beam that etches tire letters or numerals into the rubber with the required character heights and to the required character depths. You state that this technology would avoid the risk that would otherwise result from technicians having to make the weekly date code change in the top half of the tire mold. That risk has been the weekly date code change in the top half of the tire mold. That risk has been a safety concern to the tire industry. You also state that the laser etched characters, while "not molded," are permanent and that the characters are sharp, easy to read, and conform to the letter styles specified in Notes to Figure 1 of 574.5. Finally, you note that paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 states that the tire must be "marked" with certain information, instead of "permanently molded." The latter is the language in paragraph 4.3 of FMVSS No. 109, the standard that has been largely superseded by FMVSS No. 139

As a general matter, the term "molding" does not include laser etching. However, in the context of the situation you describe, we would consider permanent laser etching of the date code portion of the TIN to be a satisfactory method of complying with paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139, so long as it occurred in-line, i.e., as part of the manufacturing process of the tire.In responding to petitions for reconsideration, we will amend the regulatory text to make it clear that this is permissible.

If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:109
d.5/30/03

ID: nht94-7.39

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first question to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufactured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, such as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forces of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed forces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

ID: nht94-1.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed for ces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "re gistered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet t he FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

ID: GF000573

Ms. Laurie T. Baulig
General Counsel
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Ms. Baulig:

This is in response to your letter of January 14, 2005, in which you requested a clarification regarding a recent technical amendment to paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119.

On January 4, 2005, we published a technical amendment which, in part, revised paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 (see 70 FR 299). Specifically, the amendment changed the metric value of tire speed restriction threshold from 88 km/h (55 mph) to 90 km/h (55 mph). Prior to the amendment, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 required that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire was 88 km/h (55 mph) or less. Now, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire is 90 km/h (55 mph) or less. In both instances, S6.5(e) requires that the actual speed restriction be shown as follows:

"Max speed __km/h (__mph)".

The amendment was intended to make FMVSS No. 119 more consistent with established tire industry protocol and labeling technology, and did not substantively change the standard.

You ask whether amendment to S6.5(e) requires that each tire manufactured after February 3, 2005 (the effective date of the amendment) be marked with the revised maximum speed restriction of "Max speed 90 km/h (55 mph)," if previously marked "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)," Our answer is no.

The January 4, 2005 amendment to S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 revised only the threshold below which all tires must be marked with their actual speed restriction (emphasis added). That is, the tire manufacturer could continue marking tires with the speed restriction of "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)", if that is the correct speed restriction, or other lower values, when appropriate.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc    Motomu Shinohara
      Secretary General, JATMA
      No. 33 Mori Building
      3-8-21 Toranomon, Minato-ku,
      Tokyo, 105-0001 JAPAN

ref:119
d.3/16/05