ID: 2410y

Mr. Jerry W. Mooney
Resident Agent in Charge
United States Customs Service
Department of the Treasury
222 Oglethorpe Ave., Suite 301
Savannah, GA 31401
Re: File SV08PLOSV001

Dear Mr. Mooney:

This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1990, with respect to your investigation of the importation of l7 M151A2 military jeeps from Canada. The jeeps were imported as "parts" rather than as vehicles, shipped intact inside containers "and covered with parts."

You have asked three questions:

1. "We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?"

Your understanding is correct; no list of nonconforming vehicles exists. No procedure per se exists to determine if a vehicle meets DOT standards. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each motor vehicle must bear the permanently-affixed certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to it on its date of manufacture. The presence of the certification label gives rise to the presumption that the vehicle meets DOT standards, and vehicles offered for importation bearing the certfication label are admitted into the United States as complying vehicles.

2. "We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?"

The M151A2 jeep was not certified as conforming to Federal standards. The lack of certification raises a presumption of nonconformance with all standards. Whether it did, in fact, meet some or all of those standards is a question to which we do not have the answer.

3. "Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?"

No. Under the regulations of this agency, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in compliance with contractual specifications. Although this relieves the manufacturer of the legal obligation of compliance, he may nevertheless choose to manufacture his vehicle in conformance with one or more standards. As I said in response to your second question, we have no knowledge as to the M151A2's state of compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Although the importation of these vehicles appears to be a violation of the regulations of this agency (the failure to file a declaration), it is only a technical one, since no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applied to the jeeps at the time of their manufacture. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the safety implications of this importation.

For many years, the Department of Defense, with the encouragement of this agency, has maintained the policy that all M151 vehicles must be scrapped at the end of their useful military life in a manner such that they cannot be reassembled for use on the public roads. Over the years, these vehicles have exhibited a tendency to roll over, even when operated by drivers specifically trained in their correct usage. Consequently, it has been deemed in the interests of safety to ensure that they will not be operated by untrained drivers on the public roads. While exportation of unscrapped M151s to Canada initially removed the threat to safety in the United States, their importation into this country renews that threat. Thus, we support your investigative efforts. We understand that, under Customs procedures, merchandise entered fraudulently may be redelivered for export, or seized by Customs. If the vehicles are seized, we recommend their export or destruction, rather than disposal by sale at auction or by use by Customs personnel in the performance of their duties.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:Import d:4/25/90

ID: 24115.rbm

Mr. William Gest
Vice President of Engineering and Quality
Vantage Mobility International
5202 South 28th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Gest:

This responds to your request for clarification of the responsibilities set forth in 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) regarding certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). You are specifically interested in determining whether the disclosure requirement applies to vehicle alterers, i.e., persons or companies that modify a vehicle prior to its first retail sale.

The short answer to your question is that alterers do not have to specifically disclose a reduction in load carrying capacity that is the result of their alterations. They do, however, have to take adequate load carrying capacity into account when they determine whether the alterations have changed a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the GVWR.

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to meet all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether their modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be repair businesses by NHTSA and are typically called "modifiers" by the industry. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should be required to provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the load carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, i.e, the number of designated seating positions.

The vehicle capacity weight for passenger cars is stated on a placard located on the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. For other vehicles, such as vans, vehicle capacity weight and/or rated cargo load and luggage values may be stated on a label voluntarily affixed by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer or in the owner's manual. If no information is provided, a vehicle's load carrying capacity prior to modification is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight. Likewise, the term "available load capacity" means that load carrying capacity that remains after the modifications are completed. For a comprehensive discussion regarding the determination of "reduction in load carrying capacity," see the enclosed letters to Mark S. Lore and Kenneth Conaway, dated April 25, 2002.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/15/02

ID: 2411y

Mr. Charles M.A. Saedt
9940 Springfield Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21043

Dear Mr. Saedt:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, l990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no problem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the United States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: 2412y

Mr. Charles M.A. Saedt
9940 Springfield Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21043

Dear Mr. Saedt:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, l990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no problem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the United States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: 2413y

Mr. Anthony T. Greenish
c/o U.N.D.P.
B.P. 2183
Libreville
Gabon

Dear Mr. Greenish:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Accord 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards."

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know, many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100% of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulations which were mandated by Congress and became effective January 31, l990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to meet the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to l50% of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must be given to ensure performance of the conversion work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: 2414y

Ms Margaret Schmock
Dept K2/ELE2
Robert Bosch GmbH
Postfach 42
7410 Reutlingen
W. Germany

Dear Ms Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, l990, with respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, and "CAC Title 13, Article 9".

You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. l08 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. l08 has been changed.

We understand that "CAC" refers to "California Administrative Code". The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustment range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement.

We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pierce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854).

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/25/90

ID: 24157.ztv

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of March 14, 2002, asking three questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Pursuant to our request, you provided supplemental information on April 17, 2002.

Your questions are:

"1. If an SAE recommended practice that is referenced in FMVSS 108 is revised and updated by SAE, is the latest revision . . . automatically adopted in FMVSS 108? If not, does an earlier dated version remain in the regulation?

SAE materials that are referenced and subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108 are not automatically updated when the SAE revises them, and "earlier dated versions" remain in effect. That is because an SAE update requires an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 in order to be incorporated as a requirement. Under U.S. law, amendments to Federal regulations such as FMVSS No.108 must be proposed for public comment before they can be adopted.

2. You describe a new headlamp design and ask for confirmation of your conclusion that it complies with S7.9.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 108.

Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) requires that:

"If the [motorcycle headlamp] system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in)."

In your design, there would be "two visibly separate headlights" which would be placed "in one seamless housing," each headlamp providing an upper and lower beam, and each lamp placed symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Further, "[o]n each side, there will be clear cover placed over the outside of the lamp." You believe that this headlamp design is allowable but report that your supplier disagrees. In his view, a headlamp is permitted a maximum of two bulbs, and that use of a single housing effectively creates a four-bulb headlamp which is not permitted.

We evaluated a similar situation in our letter of February 22, 1999, to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley Electric Co. (copy enclosed). Our letter commented that "it is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps." However, the supplementary information that you furnished clarifies that the Triumph headlighting system is designed to be installed in a single housing, and that the upper and lower beam headlamps are not separable from the housing. This design differs from that posited by Stanley and, in our opinion, could not be considered a two-lamp headlamp system. As such, the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b) do not apply to this design, and Triumph needs to ensure that this headlamp complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a).

We would like to further comment that a headlamp with four light sources is permitted as a motorcycle headlamp. While there is a limitation on the number of light sources for motor vehicle headlamps, there is no limitation for motorcycle headlamps.

"3. Table IV of FMVSS 108 states that the minimum separation distance between a turn signal and a headlight must be 4 inches. However, since turn signals must comply with the requirements of SAE J588, does the factoring table in SAE J588 apply if we want to mount the turn signals closer to the headlights than 4 inches? If is difficult for us to decide if close mounting of turn signals is permissible as FMVSS [108] appears to preclude mounting turn signals closer than 4 inches yet J588 gives you a possibility to do so."

We were asked this question by BMW in a letter of August 15, 1983, and I enclose a copy of our response to Karl-Heinz Ziwicka. The interpretation remains valid. The minimum spacing requirements established by Table IV between motorcycle headlamps and turn signal lamps must be met, for the reasons expressed in our letter, notwithstanding the fact that SAE J588 NOV84 and its predecessor in effect at that time permit a closer spacing of these lamps if a multiplier is applied to the minimum luminous intensities.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.5/24/02

ID: 2415y

Ms Joan E. Fogelman
Lund & Pullara, Inc.
P.O. Box 10148
Riviera Beach, FL 33404

FAX 305-842-9836

Dear Ms. Fogelman:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 2, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a l985 Mercedes-Benz 280SE sedan being imported from the Bahamas temporarily, for the purpose of repair. You have stated that "U.S. Customs wants a reassurance 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, l990, 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 registered 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 nonresident 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 enforcement action against the vehicle and its owner is deemed appropriate under the bond.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:4/26/90

ID: 24169

Mr. Delmer T. Brower
Ortech Designer
2806 North Industrial Road
Kirksville, MO 63501





Dear Mr. Brower:

This responds to your e-mail of March 12, 2002, in which you request information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Each of your questions is answered below.

In your e-mail, you state that Ortech manufactures plastic ignition cylinder bezels and glove box lock cylinders for a Lockset supplier to a motor vehicle manufacturer. These bezels and cylinders are installed within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space. You ask whether these items "are considered an integral part of the front trim panel listed in S4.1" of Standard No. 302, thus requiring the testing specified in S4.3. If this testing is required, you ask whether Ortech, as the original equipment manufacturer, is required to perform it.

By way of background information, 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. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartments of motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. S4.2 requires any portion of the components listed in S4.1 that is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space to meet the requirements of S4.3.

The Ortech ignition cylinder bezels and glove box lock cylinders are installed in a vehicle's front trim panel. Front trim panels are listed as a component that must be certified as complying with S4.3. Under S4.2, if any portion of a front trim panel is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space, that portion must comply with S4.3. Accordingly, since the Ortech ignition cylinder bezels and glove box lock cylinders are located within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space, they must comply with S4.3.

You also asked who is responsible for performing certifying that these items comply with S4.3. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.4/15/02

ID: 2416y

Mr. Earl W. Dahl
Vice President
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Dahl:

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 included 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 requires 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 571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) together with Part 574 require that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject 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 necessary 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 intended 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 the 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.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:5/2/90