Mr. Christopher H. Willison
General Manager
Americarb
5151 Wooster Road West
Norton, OH 44203

Dear Mr. Willison:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 2004, and subsequent conversations with George Feygin of my staff. You ask a series of questions regarding DOT regulations related to a pressure vessel used for tire inflation located inside a hollow semi-trailer axle.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no FMVSS regulating pressure vessels located in hollow semi-trailer axles as described in your letter. In fact, the agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation systems for heavy vehicles. However, if your system is tied into the vehicles air braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, may have implications for your product, especially if your device is an integral part of the brake system. We do not have sufficient information about your device to discuss FMVSS No. 121 implications. However, in a previous letter of interpretation (copy attached) we stated that a tire inflation device would not be considered a part of the braking system if it was separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device.

Further, the air supply line between the air supply tank described in your letter and the pressure vessel could be considered a brake hose subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses. In a previous letter of interpretation, we stated that if a failure of a hose or a supply line would result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, that hose or supply line are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106 (copy enclosed).

For your reference, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:121
d.6/8/04

Kenneth M. Bush, Associate Director
Government Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway;
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the procedures the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow for locating "Point 1" described in S10.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You provide an illustration and two different interpretations of these procedures.

By way of background, FMVSS No. 201 requires that vehicles meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with testing procedures specified in FMVSS No. 201. With respect to targets located on the A-pillar, the agency would perform testing using the target location procedure in S10.1.

In order to locate "Point 1" described in your letter, the agency would follow the following procedure described in S10.1(a):

"On the vehicle exterior, locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. The intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface is Line 1. Measuring along the vehicle exterior surface, locate a point (Point 1) on Line 1 that is 125 mm inboard of the intersection of Line 1 and a vertical plane tangent to the vehicle at the outboardmost point on Line 1 with the vehicle side door open"

NHTSA locates "Point 1" by measuring inboard, along the nominal vehicle exterior surface, 125 mm from the intersection of "Line 1" and the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. "Line 1" is established by locating a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) that is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal plane, which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. We note that the outermost edge of the roof is determined with the door open and includes uncompressed weather stripping, rain gutter, or other trim components. NHTSA makes linear measurements following the nominal vehicle surface (as opposed to following each convolution of weather stripping, rain gutter or other trim components). See Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 201U (TP-201U-01, April 3, 1998, pages 37 and 38 at www.nhtsa.gov), and the enclosed illustration.

In your letter and accompanying illustration, you offer two interpretations for the location of "Point 1." The difference between the two interpretations appears to stem from the location of the outboardmost point on Line 1; i.e., the intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface. As explained above, that intersection is located at the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. After examining your illustration, we believe that this intersection is marked "point *2."

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/14/05

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Vice President, Engineering
Peterson Manufacturing Company
4200 East 135^th Street
Grandview, MO 64030-2896

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your April 8, 2005, letter asking about clearance lamp location requirements for trailers equipped with outboard fenders.

Your letter and accompanying diagrams show a dual axle trailer equipped with outboard fenders each extending approximately 10 inches from the main body of the trailer. The outer edges of the fenders are the widest part of the trailer. Specifically, the main body of the trailer measures 81 inches, and the distance between the outer edges of the trailer measured at the fenders is 102 inches. You intend to install both front and rear clearance lamps on the top of each fender, instead of on the main body of the trailer. You ask whether this is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that for a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, the front and rear clearance lamps must be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable."

As explained in our March 4, 1996, letter to Mr. Jerry Clay, when the widest part of a trailer is the outer edge of the fender, locating the front and rear clearance lamps on the fender satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 because the lamps would indicate the overall width of the trailer (see also, our September 4 letter to John W. Cook). By contrast, locating the clearance lamps on the main body of the trailer would not adequately indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:5/13/05:62992:OCC 003171
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp 108
U:\NCC20\INTERP\108\GF003171.doc

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated April 9, 2004, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on April 2, 2004. You believe we mistakenly assumed that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type instead of an open type flasher.

In the April 2, 2004, letter, we indicated that the newly reprogrammed flash rate of your hazard warning signal flasher would comply with the current requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (FMVSS No. 108). However, we also stated that the flash pattern in your device is very different from what the agency contemplated in incorporating SAE Recommended Practice J945 by reference in the standard, and noted that existing hazard warning signal flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Because we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals and because very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion, we indicated that we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

In your latest facsimile, you state that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type flasher, as opposed to an open type flasher. You also ask that we explain how your flasher can comply with the requirements set forth in J945, and fail to comply with the requirements of Figure 1.

First, J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. In the present case, the distinction between "normally open" or "normally closed" flashers is irrelevant because your hazard warning signal flasher would satisfy either requirement of flashes per minute.

Second, our previous letter did not indicate that your hazard warning signal flasher failed to comply with the requirements of Figure 1. Instead, we indicated our concern with the fact that while your flasher met the flashes-per-minute average identified in Figure 1, each individual flash cycle in your flash pattern is outside the parameters established in Figure 1.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.6/14/04

Mr. Steven Jonas
Principal Engineer
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Jonas:

This responds to your April 13, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask if expanded parts marking requirements in Part 541 apply to passenger cars with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds. Our answer is yes.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires identifying numbers or symbols (usually Vehicle Identification Numbers) to be placed on major parts of "high-theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles (i.e., a higher than median theft rate). "Passenger motor vehicle" was defined in the 1984 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act so as to exclude multipurpose passenger vehicles, leaving passenger cars as the only included type of vehicle. As originally issued, Part 541 thus applied to above median theft rate lines of passenger cars regardless of GVWR.

The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 331) expanded the application of the parts marking requirement by expanding the definition of "passenger motor vehicle" to include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and light duty trucks (LDTs) with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. This definitional change brought above median theft rate MPVs and LDTs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less within the parts marking requirement. On April 6, 2004, NHTSA issued a final rule that expanded Part 541, inter alia, to passenger motor vehicles with theft rates below the median (69 FR 17960). As a result, all passenger motor vehicles are now subject to the parts marking requirement.

You ask about a statement in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule in which we said that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to expand parts marking requirements to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds. That discussion applied only to multipurpose passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and not to passenger cars. The parts marking requirement has applied to passenger cars regardless of the vehicles GVWR since the issuance of Part 541. Nowhere in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule is there a discussion of narrowing the application of Part 541 to passenger cars based on the vehicles GVWR.

We regret any confusion and plan on issuing a correcting amendment that will clarify the application of Part 541 to passenger cars (541.3).

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.5/10/04

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your e-mail of March 22, 2004, in which you ask several questions with respect to a hardtop convertible vehicle equipped with a retractable glass roof. The vehicle in question will have a tinted glass roof, which retracts rearward to a stowed position inside the vehicles rear deck (trunk). A thin carbon fiber frame will surround the glass roof panel. A latch mechanism secures the roof to the windshield header when the roof is not stowed. You ask whether the glass roof, as well as carbon fiber frame and latch mechanism are exempt from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You also ask what roof glazing materials would comply with FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials.

In establishing FMVSS No. 201, the agency excluded convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms from the requirements of the standard because a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with their movement (see 60 FR 43031, at 43047). S6.3(a) of FMVSS No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. Accordingly, the carbon fiber roof frame and the latch mechanism in your vehicle are exempt from S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201.

With respect to the glass portion of the convertible roof in your vehicle, the agency has previously stated that FMVSS No. 201 was not intended to prevent injuries resulting from impacts with glazing. Accordingly, the glass portion of the convertible roof is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201.

Finally, FMVSS No. 205 contains no light transmittance requirements applicable to a glass roof described in your letter because roof glazing is in an area not requisite for driver visibility. The type of glazing material that can be used in the glass portion of the convertible roof is any glazing material subject to FMVSS No. 205, including glazing materials incorporated by reference from ANSI/SAE Z26.11996.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.7/19/04

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff asking whether your companys "Keyless System" would satisfy certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (FMVSS No. 114). Specifically, you ask whether this "Keyless System" complies with the requirements of S4.2.1(a), S.4.3, and S.4.5. Further, you ask whether an engine "Stop" button is permissible under FMVSS No. 114. The issues raised in your letter are addressed below.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. You have provided a redacted set of documents (without any information identifying you or your company), in which you described your "Keyless System" and posed questions regarding the system and FMVSS No. 114. This redacted set of documents will be made publicly available.

Your letter discusses an electronically coded "transceiver" which functions as a key. The "transceiver" is not engaged in any device, and simply remains in the drivers possession. When the "transceiver" is inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the vehicle can be started and operated by virtue of an authentication process under which an electronic code from the "transceiver" is transmitted and stored in the electronic control module. You ask us whether this "Keyless System" satisfies certain requirements of FMVSS No. 114.

In previous interpretation letters, we stated that FMVSS No. 114 would permit a keyless entry system activated by an electronically coded card (similar to your companys "Keyless System"). We have followed those interpretation letters in addressing the four questions raised in your letter.

Requirements of S4.2.1(a).

According to your letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin, removal of the "key" ("transceiver" code stored in the electronic control module) can be accomplished only when the transmission gear lever becomes locked in the "park" position. You ask whether the "Keyless System" described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2.1(a). Our answer is yes.

S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114 states that (with certain exceptions not relevant here) the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall, when tested under the procedures in S5.2, prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your company's "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.2.1(a) because the "transceiver" code cannot be removed unless the transmission gear lever becomes locked in "park" position as the direct result of removing the "transceiver" code. According to your statements, the transmission lever becomes locked in park as a direct result of "transceiver" code removal, which occurs only after (a) the transmission lever is engaged in park and (b) engines "Stop" button is depressed. Until the gear lever is locked in "park," the "transceiver" code remains stored in the electronic control module the same way a conventional key would remain in the ignition switch. Therefore, your system satisfies the requirements of S4.2.1(a) because the key cannot be removed unless the transmission lever becomes locked in "park" position as the direct result of removing the key.

Requirements of S4.3.

In your letter, you state that when the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module, the steering column lock and the immobilizer system cannot be activated. You ask whether the "Keyless System" described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S.4.3. Our answer is yes.

S4.3 states that, except when an automatic transmission vehicle is in "park," the means for deactivating the vehicles engine or motor shall not activate any device installed pursuant to S4.2(b) to prevent the vehicles steering or forward self-mobility or both. The purpose of this provision is to assure that the drivers action of turning the engine off does not create an unsafe condition by locking the steering (otherwise known as "steering lock-up") or the wheels while the vehicle is in motion.

In the present case, the means for deactivating the vehicles engine is a "Stop" button. As previously discussed, when the engine is switched off but the gear lever is not in park, the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module. Because the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module, the steering column lock and the immobilizer system cannot be activated. Accordingly, your companys "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.3.

Driver Warning Requirements of S4.5.

You ask whether your systems acoustical warning and dashboard alert to the driver satisfy the requirements of S.4.5. Our answer is yes.

S4.5 of Standard No. 114 states that a warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the "key" required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the drivers door is opened, except: (a) after the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned; (b) when the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or (c) after the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

As previously stated, in the event the engine is turned off and the transmission lever is not in the "park" position, the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module. This is analogous to the situation in which a conventional key is left in the "off" position of the ignition switch, and S4.5 requires activation of the warning if the drivers door is opened. In the present case, if the drivers door is open, your "Keyless System" provides for an acoustical warning, as well as a yet unspecified message on the dashboard, alerting the vehicle operator to place the transmission lever in the "park position." Accordingly, your companys "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.5.

In previous letters, we have observed that if a device similar to a transceiver remained in the car, e.g., in the pocket of a jacket laying on the seat, any person would only need to depress the brake pedal and depress the "Start" button to start the engine. In the absence of some kind of additional warning, there appears to be a greater likelihood of drivers inadvertently leaving transceiver-type devices in the car, as compared to a traditional key. This is because the driver must physically touch a traditional key, unlike the transceiver-type device, as part of turning off the engine. You may wish to consider whether there are any practicable means of reducing the possibility of drivers inadvertently leaving their transceiver devices in the car.

Engine "Stop" button.

You state that your "Keyless System" permits the engine to be turned off via a "Stop" button while the vehicle is in motion. This feature allows the driver to interrupt motive power and fuel supply in emergency situations. This feature can be used only if the service brakes are activated and vehicle speed is less than 6 mph. You ask whether an engine "Stop" button is permissible under FMVSS No. 114. Our answer is yes.

Please note that Standard No. 114 does not regulate the method of engine deactivation while the vehicle is in motion. However, we encourage you to carefully consider all available safety precautions to ensure that the driver or other vehicle occupants including children do not inadvertently misuse this emergency deactivation feature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.7/17/03

Mr. Jim McCann
Blok-Mor Sunvisors, LLP.
3101 South Tyler
Amarillo, TX 79109

Dear Mr. McCann:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 2004, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to sun visors.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There are two FMVSSs that are applicable to sun visors. FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (copy enclosed), establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. With respect to sun visors, section S5.4 of the standard requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visors mounting must "present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contactable by a spherical 165 mm diameter head form."The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when occupants strike the visor or visor mounting with their heads. We note that the diagram attached to your letter appears to show certain visor components or attachments that may not be constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material. In addition, S8.5 allows sun visors to be placed in any adjustment position as long as one side is in contact with the vehicle interior surface during a free-motion headform (FMH) impact test. Thus, depending on the placement of the sun visor, it could be impacted by the FMH during testing. The performance requirement is that the head injury criterion, calculated from the resultant acceleration of the FMH in accordance with S7, shall not exceed 1,000.

In addition to FMVSS No. 201, a sun visor must conform to the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors.

Please note that any sun visor designed for use on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In certain circumstances, a manufacturer of a noncomplying product may also face a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

Additionally, under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a noncomplying sun visor after the initial sale of the motor vehicle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/8/04

Dae-Ki Min, Esq.
38 West 32^nd Street, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10001-3816

Dear Mr. Min:

This is in response to your letter of June 1, 2004, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether identical tires manufactured prior to the completion of the uniform tire quality grading process and submission of results to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can subsequently be marked with appropriate grading information and sold in the United States.

49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires that all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. In addition, 49 CFR 575.6(d)(2)(i) requires that each tire brand name owner or tire manufacturer submit to NHTSA the information obtained during the tire grading process, at least 30 days before offering the tires to prospective purchasers.

In your letter, you state that the tires in question are identical and of the same grade as the tires subjected to the tire grading process, but were manufactured prior to the completion of the tire grading process because they were originally intended for a market other than the United States.

Under 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A), tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings molded into their sidewalls, if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line. In previous letters, we interpreted this time frame to mean within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States (see July 12, 1983, letter to Robert Ainsworth). In your situation, some tires were manufactured prior to the decision to import them into U.S. Accordingly, the six-month period would begin on the date of manufacture of the oldest tire that you would import to the U.S. In sum, all tires of the line manufactured not more than six months after the manufacture of the first tire of the line imported into the U.S. need not be permanently molded with UTQGS grades. However, we note that tires eligible for this six-month period are still subject to the paper labeling requirements of 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).

In addition to the six-month period, certain limited production tires are fully excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, the tires must meet all the following criteria of 575.104(c)(2):

(1) Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;

(2) The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and

(3) The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

In all other circumstances, your tires may not be sold in the United States unless they are graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and those grades or ratings are permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. Further, "molding" means the process by which the tires are shaped in the mold and imbedded with the required grading information during the actual production of the tire. Accordingly, a tire cannot be "molded" with the appropriate UTQGS grading information after it has been manufactured. Instead, the molding process must occur during the manufacture of the tire and not thereafter.

Finally, we note that in addition to UTQGS, there are several Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to tires sold in the United States. Please be advised that these FMVSSs also require that certain tire safety information be molded into the tire sidewall during the manufacturing process. Specifically, FMVSS No. 109 applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger vehicles, and FMVSS No. 119, applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger vehicles. Further, tire manufacturers may choose to voluntarily comply with FMVSS No. 139, which applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles that have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 139 is scheduled to become mandatory in the near future. For more information on effective dates and phase-in schedules please see 69 FR 38116, June 26, 2003; and 69 FR 31306, June 4, 2004.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:575
d.8/9/04

Mr. Daniel A. Bensman
Faulkner, Garmhausen, Keister & Shenk
Courtview Center - Suite 300
100 South Main Avenue
Sidney, OH 45365

Dear Mr. Bensman:

This responds to your May 4, 2005, e-mail asking the agency to clarify certain requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (Part 574). Specifically, you ask if 574.10 requires vehicle manufacturers to record the Tire Identification Number (TIN) for each tire they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale.

Part 574, sets forth two separate tire identification and recordkeeping requirements designed to facilitate notification of tire or new vehicle purchasers of defective or nonconforming tires, and to enable tire or new vehicle purchasers to identify tires subject to a recall. The first requirement, 574.7, applies to tire manufacturers and requires them to maintain tire registration records that they receive from tire dealers and distributors. The second requirement, 574.10, applies to motor vehicle manufacturers and requires them to maintain registration records on tires that they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale.

The registration record required by 574.10 must include the information identifying the tires, and the name and address of the first purchaser of each vehicle equipped with such tires. The information that identifies the tires need not include the TIN. As explained in the response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule adopting the tire recordkeeping requirements, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did not require vehicle manufacturers to record the TIN of every tire they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale because such a requirement would be extremely burdensome and costly (see 36 FR 1196 at 1197, January 26, 1971). We note, however, that some vehicle manufactures chose to use the TIN in order to identify the tires installed on their vehicles, while others use different methods that enable them to identify the size, brand, and batch or lot of tires installed on the particular group of vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:574
d.9/19/05