ID: nht90-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

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

TO: LARRY F. WORT -- BUREAU OF SAFETY PROGRAMS DIVISION OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT; OCC 4613; FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE BY CLARKS GORTA -- FORD DATED 03/19/90

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses "the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements", and that they satisfy photometry and all oth er Federal requirements. You have asked whether "the top of the cab clearance light [may] be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles."

The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optic ally combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, the re is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located "as far to the front as practicable", and the agency generally defers to t he manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford 's decision to locate the lamp there.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

FROM: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TO: JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TITLE: AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/90 FROM STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS, ON A 35, STD 125

TEXT: One of your associates provided us with a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #125 while you were away from the office.

The standard was called to our attention since we have marketed for years a Signal Glo Car Mirror warning device, as described in the enclosed literature. Included in those products were two different triangle shapes.

One of our customers, who is in the retail automotive trade, has asked us to develop a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror for possible retail sales.

As our triangle gets larger, we wish to make sure that it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in the Standard #125. In addition, we would like to make sure that our instructions for use are clear and in no way conflict with the sta ndard.

A sample of our earliest Signal Glo triangle, and our prototype new larger size "Light at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle are enclosed for your information.

We would appreciate any comments or assistance you may be able to give us.

[BROCHURE OMITTED]

ID: nht90-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-2-90 to Peter Brown from Paul J. Rice; (A35; Std. 108) TEXT:

I am writing for your comments and approval regarding an Automotive Lighting product that our company intends to market.

The headlight systems on many late model vehicles operate differently than in the past. The low beams are extinguished when the high beam units are in use. This was done to reduce the foreground light of the low beams when the high beams are in use. I n actual use, having both systems operating in the high beam mode is superior.

With this in mind, I have studied paragraph 5.5.8 of the Federal Register Volume 54, No. 88 dated May 9, 1989. I interpret this to mean that headlights of a specific type, when used in a 4 headlight system, can all be illuminated at the same time on Hig h Beam.

The intended packaging, product and retail header card are enclosed for your inspection. I welcome any suggestions or comments that you may have. As these are prototype packages, will you please return them with your comments.

Our product catalog is enclosed to give you some idea of our company and products. Thanks for your help.

ID: nht90-2.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 26, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Joan E. Fogelman -- Lund & Pollara, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-2-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Stephen P. Wood; (OCC 4602)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 2, 1990, to Taylor vinson of this Office, with reference to a 1985 Mercedes-Benz 280SE sedan being imported from the Bahamas temporarily, for the purpose of repair. You have stated that "U.S. Customs wants a reassura nce that they will not be held accountable if for some unforseen happening, this vehicle is not properly exported."

Although the new DOT vehicle importation regulations effective January 31, 1990, make no specific provision for temporary importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for repairs, when such a vehicle is owned by a nonresident of the United States and reg istered in a country other than the U.S., it is acceptable to this agency for the nonresident owner to enter it under the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(d), the declaration by an importer who provides his passport number and country of issue that he is a non resident importing the vehicle for personal use for a period not to exceed one year and will not sell the vehicle during that time. Such an entry is not accompanied by the new DOT conformance bond, which is required only for entries pursuant to 591.5(f) and (g).

I do not know what Customs means by being held "accountable" if the vehicle is not properly exported. You have stated that it will be accompanied by a Customs bond, and I assume that if the terms of that bond are violated Customs will take whatever enfor cement action against the vehicle and its owner is deemed appropriate under the bond.

ID: nht90-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/90

FROM: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING LTD

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TITLE: IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY, APRIL 26, 1990

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/30/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KENNETH E. TOMPOR; REDBOOK A35; PART 593; LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM KEN TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING TO JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT

TEXT: IN 1988, I PURCHASED FROM A MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO IN LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA THE ABOVE MENTIONED FERRARI, SERIAL #54245. THE CAR WAS PAID FOR ON OCTOBER 10, 1988 AND WHILE TRANSPORTATION WAS BEING ARRANGED TO MYSELF IN MICHIGAN, MR. DEANGELO REMOVED THE V EHICLE FROM MY LOS ANGELES STORAGE AREA "AS HE CHANGED HIS MIND". THE VEHICLE AND MONIES HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED, AND AS YOU MAY HAVE GUESSED A LAWSUIT WAS INITIATED. MY COURT CASE AGAINST MR DEANGELO WILL BEGIN TUESDAY, MAY FIRST, IN FEDERAL COURT, AND I NEED AT THAT DATE A LETTER STATING THAT THAT VEHICLE TODAY CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY. WE ARE SUEING TO GET THE VEHICLE, NOT MONETARY DAMAGES, AND NEED TO SPECIFY THE UNIQUENESS OF IT IN THAT IT CANNOT BE REPLACED LEGALLY TODAY.

MR. TAYLOR VINSON HAS GIVEN ME YOUR NAME AND ASSURED ME THAT YOU WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO FURNISH ME WITH A LETTER TO SUBSTAINIATE THIS STATEMENT. I WOULD APPRECIATE FAX-BACK ON MONDAY 4-30, AS CASE BEGINS ON MAY 1, 1990 THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE, I REMAINI N 1988, I PURCHASED FROM A MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO IN LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA THE ABOVE MENTIONED FERRARI, SERIAL #54245. THE CAR WAS PAID FOR ON OCTOBER 10, 1988 AND WHILE TRANSPORTATION WAS BEING ARRANGED TO MYSELF IN MICHIGAN, MR. DEANGELO REMOVED THE VE HICLE FROM MY LOS ANGELES STORAGE AREA "AS HE CHANGED HIS MIND". THE VEHICLE AND MONIES HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED, AND AS YOU MAY HAVE GUESSED A LAWSUIT WAS INITIATED. MY COURT CASE AGAINST MR DEANGELO WILL BEGIN TUESDAY, MAY FIRST, IN FEDERAL COURT, AND I NEED AT THAT DATE A LETTER STATING THAT THAT VEHICLE TODAY CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY. WE ARE SUEING TO GET THE VEHICLE, NOT MONETARY DAMAGES, AND NEED TO SPECIFY THE UNIQUENESS OF IT IN THAT IT CANNOT BE REPLACED LEGALLY TODAY.

MR. TAYLOR VINSON HAS GIVEN ME YOUR NAME AND ASSURED ME THAT YOU WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO FURNISH ME WITH A LETTER TO SUBSTAINIATE THIS STATEMENT. I WOULD APPRECIATE FAX-BACK ON MONDAY 4-30, AS CASE BEGINS ON MAY 1, 1990 THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE, I REMAIN

ID: nht90-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1990

FROM: Kent D. Smith

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to K.D. Smith (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89 Edition), pages 137, 138, 139, and 140 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I appreciated your response to my letter (locater number #4387). In my initial letter to you I described a device that could be used to inform following vehicles that their headlights were blinding you and that they needed to put them on low beam. This device consisted of a button that would activate the backup lights momentarily and would send the same message to the following driver as blinking the headlights up and down does to inform oncoming cars that they needed to dim their lights.

At the present time there are three methods that people use to inform following vehicles that their high beam in your rear view mirrors are making it difficult for you to drive. Some try taping their brakelights. This method is not effective because it is more universally accepted to mean that the following driver is tailgating. Another method which was pointed out in the cartoon that you sent me was that you slow down, let the offending driver pass and then put your lights on high and give him a tast e of his own medicine. This may make you feel better but it doesn't take care of the problem when it is happening. The most extreme method, but the one that gets the message across better than the other two, is what many truck drivers have done and in some cases people in private vehicles. In the case of truckers some have attached a spot light to their side mirror and when the following vehicle doesn't dim his lights he gives him a blast in the eyes with the spot light. The message is clear but it' s a dangerous way of putting the point across because of it's blinding effect on the driver of the following vehicle.

I realize that my device need not be a mandated part of newly manufactured cars but I believe that it has a place as an option for new cars as well as an after market item. There was some concern on your part that this device "might" impair the effectiv eness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 allows. Over the past number of years there have been several new devices added to the rear lighting system that have been an enhancement and not an impairment. Three of them that I have in mind are the turn signal, the four way emergency lights, and the brake light that is placed in the rear view window. I suppose that at the beginning there was some question as to what they meant but it didn't take the public long to understand the message they were trying to convey. I believe that the public would be equally as fast understanding the message that the "rear high beam awareness light" was trying to convey.

A Federal Standard, SAE J593e 4.2, states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion". I believe that the intent of this law is to force people to repair their backup light system when the lights are stuck in an on pos ition. With my safety device the backup

lights would go on and off in a matter of a second or two so it would seem to me that the spirit of this law would not be violated. I feel that this would be a safe way of eliminating an annoying problem (high beams in your rear view mirrors) that up to now has not been resolved.

What steps would have to be taken in regards to this SAE Standard that would permit me to test market this product? In your legal opinion would I be in violation of any Federal Law by manufacturing and selling this device?

I again thank you for your time and patience and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Please send your reply to: Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper Utah 84020

P.S. To save you the time of looking it up I'm enclosing my previous letter sent to your office Jan. 26, 1990. (Locater # 4387)

ID: nht90-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/30/90

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

TO: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS & LEASING LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/26/90 FROM KENNETH TOMPOR TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; RE IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY, 04/26/90; OCC 4706; LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM KEN TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING TO JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLI CE DEPARTMENT

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of April 26, 1990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States.

Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor veh icle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, 1990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is ca pable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no det ermination with respect to the 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO.

However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation.

The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, 1988, and (she) has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle.

The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, 1988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding c ontract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, 1988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, 1992.

Only if an importer meets these criteria may (she) at the present time legally import a nonconforming 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry ).

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/90

FROM: BRAD MAGOR

TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/28/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO BRAD G. MAGOR; A35; PART 591

TEXT: We are moving back to the States (S.C.) from Canada in the near future. Ideally, we would like to buy a truck or van up here to help us with our move, though we don't want to get stuck with a vehicle that we can't use or eventually sell in the States. C ould you give us any information on what features cars or trucks require to meet U.S. safety standards. Do you know if Canada or Canadian cars generally have these items.

Thank you very much for this information and your assistance.

ID: nht90-2.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1990

FROM: Jerry Laderberg -- Acting Director, Commercial Rulings Division

TO: John H. Heinrich -- District Director

TITLE: Re Country of origin marking of imported automotive glass

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Durant (A36; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated June 26, 1989 from S.P. Wood to M. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from J. Durant to P.J. Rice (OCC 4965)

TEXT:

This is in response to your memorandum of July 21, 1988, (MAR-2-05-LA:CO:TTB-1 DLM), requesting internal advice on the country of origin marking of imported replacement automotive glass. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

FACTS:

Mitsubishi International Corporation imports automotive glass from Japan for the replacement automotive market. The automotive glass is packaged in two ways. Deep bent automotive glass such as windshields and rear windows are individually packaged in p lastic containers. Side window automotive glass are individually packaged in cardboard containers. All the containers are marked with the country of origin of the glass.

The car manufacturer's name, the trademark of the glass, the material code, the Department of Transportation ("DOT") number and other markings required by the European Community are sandblasted on the glass. It is common commercial practice to mark the glass with the trademark, DOT number and other certification marks. The part numbers are placed on labels on the individual container.

In HQ 726169 (September 20, 1984), Customs denied an importer's request for an exemption from individual country of origin marking of glass windshields and windows for buses and automobiles. Customs cited examples of who might be considered the ultimate purchaser of imported glass in different circumstances, but did not rule on who the ultimate purchaser was in that case.

In HQ 729257 (March 30, 1988), Customs clarified its position that the examples cited in HQ 726169 were not necessary to the ruling and were not binding on Customs.

In your memorandum, you asked that we determine who is the ultimate purchaser of imported replacement automotive glass and how the imported glass ought to be marked for country of origin marking purposes.

ISSUE:

Whether the installer of imported replacement automotive glass is the ultimate purchaser for country of origin marking purposes.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless expected, every article of foreign origin imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article. The Court of International Trade stated in Ford North America v. United States, 701 F.Sup p. 229, 12 CIT (CIT 1988), that: "In ascertaining what constitutes the country of origin under the marking statute, a court must look at the sense in which the term is used in the statute, giving reference to the purpose of the particular legislation inv olved. The purpose of the marking statute is outlined in United States v. Friedlaender & Co., 27 CCPA 297 at 302 C.A.D. 104 (1940), where the court stated that: "Congress intended that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of th e marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will."

Part 124, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(d), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(d)), defines the ultimate purchaser as generally the last person in the U.S. who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported. The definition then gives examples of who might be the ultimate purchaser if the imported article is used in manufacture, if the imported article is sold at retail in its im ported form and if an imported article is distributed as a gift.

The standard for determining the ultimate purchaser of an article used in manufacture is set forth in section 134.35, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.35), which provides that the manufacturer or processor who converts or combines the imported article int o an article having a name, character or use differing from that of the imported article is considered the ultimate purchaser. Under such circumstances, the imported article is substantially transformed and the article itself need not be individually ma rked. Only the outermost container in which the article is imported must be marked.

A substantial transformation occurs when articles lose their identity and become new articles having a new name, character or use. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 at 270 (1940), National Juice Products Association v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 628 F.Supp. 978 (CIT 1986), Koru North America v. United States, 12 CIT , 701 F.Supp. 229 (CIT 1988).

In the instant case, the automotive glass is imported already cut to size and is merely installed into the automobile. Further, the glass is imported already cut to shape and dedicated to use as either a windshield, rear window, or side window, and made to fit a particular automobile type and model. In addition, the automotive glass is imported in a finished condition and merely requires installation. No evidence was submitted that the installation is particularly complex or requires a great deal of

skill. For all the above reasons, the installation of replacement automotive glass into an automobile is not a substantial transformation.

Since the replacement automotive glass is not substantially transformed, pursuant to 19 CFR 134.35, the automobile owner who purchases the glass is the ultimate purchaser. The marking statute requires that the ultimate purchaser, who in this case is the automobile owner purchasing replacement glass, be made aware of the country of origin of the imported article.

Section 134.41(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(a)), states that as a general rule, marking requirements are best met by marking worked into the article at the time of manufacture. For example, it is suggested that the country of origin on metal a rticles be die sunk, molded in or etched; on earthenware or chinaware be glazed on in the process of firing; and on paper articles be imprinted. The marking requirements of 19 CFR 134.41 are best met by marking worked into the glass at the time of manuf acture which would be visible to the automobile owner purchasing the glass. In any case, the marking must be sufficient to insure that in any reasonably foreseeable circumstance, the marking shall remain on the article until it reaches the ultimate purch aser unless it is deliberately removed.

HOLDING:

Imported replacement automotive glass is not substantially transformed when it is installed in an automobile. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 134.1(d), the automobile owner who purchases the replacement glass is the last person in the U.S. to receive it i n its imported form and is the ultimate purchaser of the imported automotive glass. Pursuant to 19 CFR 134.41, the marking requirement is best met with a marking worked into the glass at the time of manufacture which would be visible to the automobile o wner purchasing the glass.

ID: nht90-2.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Earl W. Dahl -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.,Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-31-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Earl W. Dahl; Also attached to letter dated 5-31-89 To Garry Gallagher and From Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574,Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be in cluded in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 re quires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR S571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119) together with Part 574 require that, certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire s ubject' to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information for the safe use of the tires. (These standards) permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intende d to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner.

Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse tbe meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.