ID: 11524WKM

Mr. Herb Wolff
Sam's International Trade U.S.A.
4501 North Dixie Highway
Oakland Park, FL 33334

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your letter of January 31, 1996, to Walter Myers of my staff in which you ask whether the terms "textile" or "generic textile" are sufficient descriptions of tire cord composition to comply with paragraph S6.3.2(c) of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires. As discussed below, the answer is no.

You explain in your letter that you intend to import a line of bead-to-bead remanufactured tires from England, on which the cord description on the tires reads:

Plies tread 2 steel & 2 textile sidewall 1 textile

or

Plies tread 2 steel & 2 organic textile sidewall 1 organic textile

You state that the purpose of that phraseology is to be descriptive, yet sufficiently generic to use with sidewall construction and tread plies of rayon, nylon, or polyester. You include some tracings from the sidewalls of similarly-labeled remolded tires on which the word "textile" is also used.

The labeling requirement for pneumatic tires is established by section 30123 of Title 49, U.S. Code. That section requires that all tires be permanently and conspicuously labeled with certain safety information, including "the composition of material used in the ply of the tire." That requirement is implemented in paragraph S6.3.2(c) of FMVSS No. 117, which specifies that all tires be labeled with:

(c) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire.

The word "textile" is a generic term that applies to the gamut of woven or knitted fabrics. It is so general that, if not actually misleading, it is noninformative in that it does not distinguish between such natural fabrics or fibers as cotton, wool, and silk, and synthetic fibers such as polyester and nylon, all of which have totally different characteristics. Although tire cords are made from some of the same synthetic materials as textiles, such as nylon and rayon, other textiles such as silk and cotton are not suitable for tire cords. Accordingly, since textiles are commonly understood to be woven or knitted fabrics, merely labeling Atextile@ to describe tire cords does not sufficiently distinguish between tire cord materials and their different characteristics.

Tire cords are made from many different materials such as rayon, nylon, polyester, steel, glass, and various other polyamides, each of which has different composition and different performance characteristics. The many different cord materials and their many different characteristics enable a tire to be specially geared to its anticipated use. Thus, the specific generic composition, such as nylon, rayon, steel, etc., rather than merely Atextile,@ must be labeled on tires to enable tire purchasers to select the characteristics they want in a given tire.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: #109#117#119 d:3/29/96

ID: Huser.1

Mr. Ken Huser
Eldorado National, Kansas
1655 Wall Street
Salina, KS 67401

Dear Mr. Huser:

This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you ask whether our regulations include requirements for the activation (illumination) of clearance, identification, and side marker lamps on vehicles of 80 inches or more in overall width. Your correspondence stated that you are seeking confirmation of this point because a customer is requesting that you modify a vehicle equipped with front clearance lamps to provide a switch that would allow the operator to turn off those lamps. The answer to your questions is no, although other Federal or State laws may apply in this situation.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As you point out in your e-mail, paragraph S5.5.7 of the standard sets forth activation (illumination) requirements for certain lamps on passenger cars, motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses less than 80 inches in overall width (e.g., when the parking lamps are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated). It is also correct that, in certain cases, the standard specifies activation requirements for certain lamps on all vehicles, such as paragraph S5.5.3, which provides that the taillamps on each vehicle shall be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state. However, the standard contains no similar requirements for any electrical wiring or switching relationship between the clearance, identification, and side marker lamps on vehicles of 80 inches or more in overall width, and any other required lamps.

However, I would note that other authorities with jurisdiction over vehicles operational safety may have addressed this issue, so you may wish to make further inquiries before undertaking modifications to the vehicle in question. Specifically, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may wish to contact FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 to obtain further information regarding any FMCSA regulations dealing with vehicle operating requirements related to lighting.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State where the vehicle will be used regarding any such requirements.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have 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:108
d.10/6/04

ID: 8679

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manager, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the

operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertant door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:10/7/93

ID: nht76-2.16

DATE: 07/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Thomas Built Buses' June 4, 1976, question whether the requirements in S5.1.3 and S5.1.4 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, to "Apply additional force . . . through the . . . loading bar until (a specified number) of inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed in deflecting the seat back . . ." can be satisfied in part by the energy that is returned to the load bar as it is withdrawn from the seat back. You also ask if there are minimum or maximum time limits on withdrawal of the loading bar from the seat surface.

The requirement for the absorption of a minimum amount of energy in (Illegible Word) the seat back in the forward and rearward directions is calculated to provide adequate measurement of the energy involved in the impact between the bus occupants and the seating in a percentage of school bus crashes. The agency calculated the amount of energy to be consumed by the seat back that would result in adequate protection. The specification requires the seat to "absorb" (i.e., receive without recoil) a specific amount of energy. This value is represented by the amount of energy that is not returned to the loading bar as it is withdrawn. Described graphically, the area that represents returned energy under the seat back force/deflection curve must be subtracted from the entire area that lies under the curve in order to calculate the energy "absorbed" by the seat back.

With regard to your second question, no time limits have been established for withdrawal of the loading bar. The agency intends to utilize a withdrawal time that is not more than five minutes so that creep will not be a significant factor in determining energy absorption. Because the time is not specified, the manufacturer is free to use any reasonable time that does not significantly affect the elastic and plastic components of the seat back loading.

thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

June 4, 1976

Mr. Bob Krause Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Administration

Re: Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards - Para. 571.222 S5.1.4.1 & S5.1.4.2

Our engineering department is in the process of developing testing and analysis techniques for demonstration of compliance with the referenced section of FMVSS. To ensure that these techniques will meet all requirements, we are in need of further clarification of the paragraphs pertaining to seat back load application. Accordingly, we would appreciate answers from your department on the following specific questions:

(1) Para. 571.222 S5.1.4.2 specifies energy absorption of the seat back deflection during load application. What is the significance of or treatment required of the energy returned during the backing off of the loading bar?

(2) Are there any requirements regarding elapsed time interval for the load back-off?

(3) Same questions re Para. 571.222 S5.1.3 thru S5.1.3.4 - Seat Performance Forward.

Thank you for your prompt assistance in answering these questions.

Malcolm B. Mathieson Engineering Manager

ID: 23112.ztv

Mr. Edward M. Kronk
Butzel Long, PC
Suite 500
150 West Jefferson
Detroit, MI 48226-4430





Dear Mr. Kronk:

This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 2001, asking three questions about the relationship of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to lighting equipment that may be marketed as being for off-road use but that is capable of being installed on-road vehicles and used on the public highways. You remarked that "there is interest in the automotive enthusiast community in using so-called 'European-styled' or 'E-Code' Headlamps as replacement headlamps," and that they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Your questions, and our responses, are set forth below.

"1. May automotive headlamps that do not comply with FMVSS 108 be imported and sold in the US for "off-road" use on "off-road" vehicles?

"Off-road" and "off-road vehicles" are not terms defined in Standard No 108 or in any other regulation or law that we administer, and have no legal meaning. You identify the headlamps as "replacement headlamps." In our view, S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires that any motor vehicle replacement headlamp that is offered for sale in the United States must comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces. I enclose letters on related subjects that we sent to Mitch L. Williams of Hella on July 17, 1998, and to Tobin Tracy of Clr Alt Accessories on April 17, 2001. We informed Mr. Tracy that "any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108," and that such a term as "off-road" has no exclusionary meaning under Federal law.

"2. Does the answer to question 1 change if, despite the express intent of the manufacturer and seller of the headlamps that they be used only "off-road," they are capable of being installed and used "on-road" in conventional "on-road" vehicles?

As noted above, if the headlamps are capable of being installed and used in motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., "conventional 'on-road' vehicles"), they are motor vehicle headlamps that must comply with Standard No. 108 in order to be imported or sold regardless of the "intent" of the importer or seller. Even if we assume the best of intentions, we recognize that a seller has no control over the use of a product after it is sold.

"3. If the importation and sale of such noncompliant headlamps intended for off-road use only is permitted, what packaging and labeling requirements, if any, apply to their importation and sale?

As we have indicated in response to question 2, such lamps may not be imported or sold regardless of their packaging or labeling.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/28/01

ID: nht81-2.41

DATE: 07/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborg AB, Tire Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking for information concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), as it applies to motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked what markings must be on the sidewalls of knobby motorcross tires (motorcycle tires designed for off-road use) to satisfy the requirements of Standard 119.

If your company designs the tires exclusively for off-road use, with no expectation that they will be used when the motorcycle is on the public roads, Standard 119 is not applicable to the tires. Therefore, no markings would be required on the sidewall of the tires. On the other hand, if you believe the motorcross tires will, in fact, be used on the public roads, as well as off-road, they must meet the marking requirements specified in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed).

Standard No. 119 and its marking requirements apply to all new tires designed for highway use on non-passenger-car motor vehicles. In response to the petitions for reconsideration of Standard 119, the agency stated that manufacturers of motorcross tires would have to determine if the tires were designed for highway use (see 39 FR 5191, February 11, 1974, copy enclosed). In the absence of a showing to the contrary, however, this agency would assume that motorcycles equipped with motocross tires are ridden on the public highways to and from race competition or trail use, which would mean the tires are subject to the requirements of Standard 119.

Following the publication of the above-mentioned notice, a manufacturer of motocross tires requested an interpretation of Standard 119, and stated that its motocross tires are not suitable for use on public roads, and are not designed for such use. The agency responded that such tires are not subject to the requirements of Standard 119, based on this set of circumstances.

However, as noted above, each manufacturer must make this determination. Please note that if you decide that the tires are not subject to Standard 119, 49 CFR Part 574 prohibits the DOT certification label from appearing on the sidewall of the tire. Please further note that a manufacturer's determination of this point is not dispositive. That is, this agency has authority to independently re-examine the manufacturer's determination. If the manufacturer's determination was incorrect, the manufacturer would be liable for civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each tire imported into this country which did not meet all the requirements of Standard 119. If you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Gentlemen,

Trelleborg AB, a Swedish Tire Manufacturer, Code no LW, plan to export motorcycle tires for motocross ( = Not for highway use) to USA.

Actual sizes are: 4.50-17 and 4.50-18.

Please tell us what we have to observe regarding the text on the tire walls.

Sincerely,

TRELLEBORG AB -- Tire Division;

Erik Sundelin -- Diplomengineer

ID: nht93-7.13

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/20/93 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 8679)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-5.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 8, 1976, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to safety glazing for use in "slow moving" vehicles. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions. Apparently, your earlier letter of February 5, 1976, was misplaced.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in most motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A glazing manufacturer must certify any glazing that is to be used in a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) as being in compliance with Standard No. 205. "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's opinion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" under the definition. Glazing material that is to be used in a vehicle that does not qualify as a "motor vehicle" does not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd

Robert L. Carter -- Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Carter,

On 5th February 1976 I wrote to the Department of Transportation requesting information on possible regulations in the U.S.A. governing the safety glazing to be fitted in slow moving vehicles. To date I have not received a reply. It may be that the letter was lost in the post and I, therefore, enclose a copy.

I realise, of course, that this query is probably nothing to do with your department, but I would be grateful if you could either forward it to the correct authority or alternatively let us have the address of this authority in order that we can write to them ourselves.

Yours sincerely,

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

FEBRUARY 5, 1976

The Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir,

SLOW MOVING VEHICLES

Can you please let us know what regulations, if any, govern the type of safety glazing which must be fitted in slow moving vehicles (i.e. vehicles with a maximum speed of 20-25 km/h) in the U.S.A. These vehicles are usually agricultural or forestry vehicles, etc. which might go on a public road for short periods.

Our understanding of U.S. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966 and F.M.V.S.S. 205 are that neither covers such vehicles. The former describes a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways" and the latter applies only to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motor cycles, slide-in campers and pick up covers.

If the above query does not come within your jurisdiction, we would be grateful if you would forward our letter to the correct authority.

Yours faithfully, TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY LIMITED;

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

ID: nht75-1.41

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 19, 1975, requesting clarification of the relationship between the masking requirement and the brake hose assembly performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

On August 1, 1975, the NHTSA issued a notice delaying until March 1, 1976, the effective date of the masking requirement, in order to allow time for public comment on its proposed elimination. Copies of this and a more recent notice are enclosed.

If the standard is amended to eliminate the masking requirement, the issues which you have raised will be mooted. Otherwise, these issues will be dealt with in an upcoming Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

March 19, 1975

Chief Council's Office -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

If you would, I would like some clarification on FMVSS-106. My question is in regards to effective dates.

First, we understand that all fittings, tubings and hoses in the air brake system must now meet all performance requirements of the 106 regulation. We further understand that all fittings, tubings and hoses must be properly labeled and that the assembler, except the vehicle manufacturer, must band to indicate his certification. The vehicle manufacturer will certify his assembly by the normal certification label installed on the vehicle.

Regarding the labels, we are now receiving fittings properly labeled and the assembler bands are installed as required and are properly labeled. The tubings and hoses, even though they meet the performance requirements, are in most cases not labeled. This, we understand, has been approved.

We understand that painting over the embossed type labels on fitting and banding is completely satisfactory. However, masking must be done at least one place on each tube or hose for identification. It would be useless for us as a manufacturer to mask tubing and hoses that have no label.

It is our understanding that tubing and hose must be properly labeled and that we as a manufacturer must so protect this label as outlined above no later than 31 August, 1975. Is this correct?

We have to problem areas.

1. In our tubing assembly from the front connector to the running gear area. In this area we will install a protective sleeve over the tubing in our assembly process. This can be done without real complications, as we are making the assembly.

2. The major problem area is in the hose assembly purchased with permanent end fittings. In many cases the end fittings are large with relation to the hose size. Therefore, it is desirable for the assembler to install this protective sleeve to fit the hose, rather than us install a large sleeve to clear the fitting that may not do a good job.

I would appreciate your review of this problem area and would like to have a clarification in the labeling requirements.

Sincerely, Dudley E. DeWitt -- Manager, Research & Development

cc: Don W. Wieriman - TTMA

ID: ES004934

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager, NHTSA Compliance
Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc.
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This is in response to your recent e-mail to Mr. George Feygin, in which you requested clarification of the June 3, 2004, final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (69 FR 31306). Paragraph S4.3(h) of that standard allows a vehicle manufacturer to place an optional bar code or vehicle identification number (VIN) on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible under paragraph S4.3(h) to continue the use of certain two-letter codes on the vehicle placard to track and coordinate the correct application of specific placards with specific vehicle types on or after September 1, 2005, the effective date of the rule.

By way of background, the June 3, 2004, final rule is related to an earlier final rule published on November 18, 2002, which sought to improve the information readily available to consumers about tires (69 FR 69600). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that it believes that overcrowding the vehicle placard and tire inflation pressure label with information considered non-critical for regular maintenance would discourage the use of tire inflation pressure information in those key locations, so the agency decided upon a general prohibition against the addition of "other information" to these sources (69 FR 31306, 31311).

As you are probably aware, the agency is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004, final rule, and we expect to issue our response shortly. Our review suggests that the issue raised in your recent e-mail is already before the agency in the context of a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-4). The Alliances petition seeks to amend paragraph S4.3(h) to permit inclusion of an optional part number on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. We view the two-letter code described in your correspondence as a variation of the part number issue discussed in the Alliances petition, and we will address the issue you raise in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Beyond the code marking issue, please note that the Fuji label provided with your correspondence does not follow the format specified in paragraph S4.3 and Figure 1 of the June 3, 2004 final rule for FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, paragraph S4.3 provides in relevant part, " This information shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, , as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard."

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.9/10/04