ID: 1982-2.36

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is to follow-up on your conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the armrest requirement of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific question concerned the application of section 5.3.1(c) of the standard to an armrest attached to a door. The inboard side of the armrest consists of two vertical surfaces, an upper one and a lower one. The upper surface extends 3 mm closer to the center of the vehicle than does the lower surface. You stated that the two surfaces when viewed in side elevation, i.e., from the vantage point of the door latch or door hinges, together provide more than 2 inches of vertical height within the pelvic impact area. You also asked if section 5.3.1(c) set any limits on the material used for armrests.

Section 5.3.1(c) of the standard provides that:

Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.

Section 5.3.1(c) does not set any radius of curvature or height limitation on armrest surfaces. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. Section 5.3.1(c) also does no specify any limits on the materials that may be used in an armrest. Obviously, such surfaces must be designed carefully to ensure that the armrest does no concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.37

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kamlot Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Braden President Kamlo Marketing Inc. 4311 East 104th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136

Dear Mr. Braden:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding "plush" seats and a rear sofa.

Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.

You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear of the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Would you please send me a letter regarding the proper seat belts to be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. The vans are being remanufactured with plush seats (4), a rear sofa, bay windows, and carpeted. When finished they are a 7-passenger vehicle, under 10,000 lbs. GVW.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Terry W. Braden President

ID: 1982-2.38

DATE: 08/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Middlekauf Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of July 16, 1982, for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

You have told us that "as a seller and installer of truck bodies, we are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer." Our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) requires the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle to furnish, with the vehicle, statements with respect to each of the standards which inform the final stage manufacturer of the vehicle's compliance status. With respect to Standard No. 301, each manufacturer should provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform or, alernatively, a statement that the vehicle when completed will conform if no alternations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

These statements afford a basis for your certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 without the necessity of testing. We would like to know which of these statements have been provided and why you may believe your manufacturing operations are such that you could not certify compliance with Standard No. 301.

We would also like to make clear that there is no legal requirement that you crash test a $ 10,000 vehicle in order to demonstrate compliance. Certification may be based upon computer simulation, mathematical calculation, or engineering studies. Upon reflection you may decide that you have an adequate basis for certification with Standard No. 301.

Until we hear further from you, we shall hold your petition in abeyance.

SINCERELY,

July 16, 1982

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Sir:

Under the provisions of section 123 par (1) (A) of public law 89-563, we should like to apply for a temporary exemption for a period of three years from Standard 301-75 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The name of our organization, which is a corporation, incorporated under the laws of the state of Ohio, is: Middlekauff, Inc. 1615 Ketcham Ave. Toledo, OHIO 43608

This temporary exemption of three years from Federal Standard 301-75 is requested as full compliance would cause a substantial economic hardship on our organization. As a seller and installer of truck bodies, we are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer. In many of these cases, we are called upon to extend the filler pipe to the gas tank and relocate the filler cap for such gas tank. While all due care is exercised in this operation to the extent of duplicating the hose and clamps used by the original manufacturer, and in many cases, utilizing the original gas cap, it is not always possible to recess the gas cap itself. We are referring to vehicles of 10,000 GVW or less and in limited quantities.

It is our understanding that in order to achieve full compliance with 301-75, it would be necessary for us to crash test a vehicle or vehicles, in order to determine if such a crash would result in material fuel leakage. As each vehicle, complete with body, would cost approximately $ 10,000, the cost of demolishing such vehicle or vehicles would be prohibitive.

Corporate Balance Sheets and Income Statements for the last three fiscal years are attached to this application in an effort to substantiate our exemption.

A denial of this petition would result in a complete loss to us of this market, while not great in numbers, represents a substantial amount of sales to our organization.

We can devise no alternate means of compliance with 301-75 other than those we have taken in exercising due care in our installation, and have no reason to believe that our methods of installation of this filler cap would not live up to the regulations, but are in no position to fully test it to prove full satisfaction in view of a crash.

The total number of motor vehicles referred to above, delivered from July 1, 1981 to July 1, 1982, was 95. No expectations are had that the total number of vehicles of the type referred to above would exceed 250 in any given year.

Sincerely hoping that the information furnished will be sufficient to allow the administration to grant the exemption requested at the earliest opportunity so that we may satisfy our suppliers,

F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman

ID: 1982-2.39

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. David N. Cumming Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Cumming

This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification concerning the positioning of vehicles for testing under Safety Standards Nos. 212, 219 and 301. Specifically, you are concerned with a vehicle which is capable of height adjustment by manufacturer design, i.e., a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving.

The safety standards to which you refer do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set height. In fact, we have checked the agency's past interpretations for all three standards and determined that this question has never arisen. After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions. To save on testing costs, you should be able to determine the worst case position, particularly with regard to Standard No. 301, and test only in that position. Your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) is to exercise due care to determine that your vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this has been fully responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 11, 1982

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Test Condition - Safety Standard Compliance Tests On Vehicles Capable Of Vehicle Height Adjustment

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would like a clarification regarding the position for testing vehicles which are capable of vehicle height adjustment by manufacturer design (for example, a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving).

To determine compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards such as 212, 219, and 301, what height position would NHTSA specify for testing the vehicle.

For example:

(1) highway driving position (2) off-highway position (3) design position, if different than (1) and (2), etc.

Also, please verify whether the manufacturer is responsible for compliance at height positions other than the specified test position.

Your response prior to July 30, 1982 would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David N. Cumming Engineer

DNC/mjs

ID: 1982-2.4

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Auto Safety House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 25, 1982, letter asking whether an old school bus body can be mounted on a new chassis if the resulting vehicle would not comply with the safety standards applicable to school buses (Standards 220, 221 and 222). The answer to your question is no.

The agency regards the installation of a new chassis on a school bus as constituting the manufacture of a new school bus. Accordingly, the new school bus would be required to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. In the case to which you refer, that would include compliance with all of the current school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

AUTO SAFETY HOUSE

March 25, 1982

Administrator National Highway Traffic Administration.

Subject: Certification

Gentlemen,

What standards does a school bus body built prior to 1977 have to meet when installed on a 1982 school bus chassis? Can this body be installed on a 1982 chassis without meeting Standards, 220, 221 and 222 that apply to bodies built after 1977?

I would appreciate receiving this information as soon as it can be processed and thank you in advance for your assistance.

Wilmer E. Harper President

ID: 1982-2.40

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 16 1982

AIR MAIL

Mr. Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section Ichikon Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Takata:

This is in reference to your letter of June 30, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency concerning the effective luminous lens area of a front turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 with respect to three proposed designs.

We assume that you wish to know what is the effective projected luminous lens area for a front turn signal on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The SAE Standard No. J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," which you quote, imposes no additional requirements for a two compartment front turn signal lamp. Thus, it appears that so long as you meet the minimum of 3.5 square inches for a single compartment lamp, your proposed designs (Case 1 and 2) meet the necessary requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Case 3 would not conform as neither of the two section compartments meets the 3.5 square inch minimum.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

L57/30 June 30, 1982

Mr. Marx Elliott Program Manager Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Effective projected luminous area of Front Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We would like to inquire as follows. FMVSS 108 references SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, and SAE J588e prescribe Effective Projected Luminous Area as follows.

SAE J588e

3.2 The effective projected luminous area of a single compartment lamp measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp must be at least 8.0 sq in. for a rear lamp and at least 3.5 sq in. for a front lamp.

3.3 If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 3 1/2 sq. in. provided the combined area is at least 8 sq in.

That is, in the case of front turn signal lamp, section 3.2 provide that Effective Projected Luminous Area should be more than 3.5 sq in.

But when we want to take into account of two compartments of front turn signal lamp, may we understand that the following cases are acceptable for FMVSS 108.

*Insert artwork

Condition of Effective Projected Luminous Area

Area A Area B A + B

Case 1 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2

Case 2

/3.5 in.2

Case 3 < 3.5 in.2 <>/3.5 in.2

We await your early reply.

Very truly yours, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section

ID: 1982-2.41

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weldon Incorporated -- Robert P. Donley (Columbus, Oh)

COPYEE: Raymond Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1981, regarding continuing compliance of lighting equipment after repairs.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?"

Repair of a vehicle in service is irrelevant to its certification. Certification is the assurance given by the manufacturer to distributors, dealers, and purchasers, that Federal standards are met by his product upon its sale when new. There is no requirement that the certification be valid for the life of the product.

"2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?"

This is a good question, and the answer is no. When repairs are necessary there is no Federal legal requirement that the lamp remain in conformance afterwards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not alter fully functional lamps in a manner that renders them nonconforming, or substitute nonconforming equipment. This prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner; his modifications are subject only to State and local restrictions.

"3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?"

As I stated earlier, repairs of used vehicles and equipment are not subject to conformance or certification. However, if a lamp is replaced in its entirety, the manufacturer of the replacement lamp is responsible for certifying conformity to Standard No. 108 because that standard covers replacement equipment of the types you mentioned ("e.g., stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp").

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 10, 1981

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

We are seeking an understanding of what would nullify the original certification of a motor vehicle lamp (e.g. stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp) to conformance with FMVSS 108 as result of a certain field repair.

A motor vehicle lamp is a mechanical composite of its housing, lens, bulb and miscellaneous other parts. The lamp is designed to conform with FMVSS 108 as originally designed and manufactured.

On the basis of an approved independent laboratory report (sample enclosed) a lamp is certified by the original manufacturer as being designed to conform with FMVSS 108.

Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions:

1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?

2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?

3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?

We respectfully request your reply by January 11, 1982. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Robert P. Donley President

[Text information omitted]

Sign off: 6:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996

ID: 1982-2.5

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Riken America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter inquiring whether it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109).

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions.

The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibited when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency's reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 16, 1982

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Dear Sir:

Riken America, Inc. is the importer of Riken Brand Automobile Tires into the United States. We, and the manufacturer, Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, are considering marking our "82 Series" of steel-belted radial tires with both the European (ETRTO) metric size and the new P-metric size. The line is currently using the European (ETRTO) metric sizes only.

The engineering department at Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd. has investigated the possibility of dual-marking our line and has determined that the tire specifications for the European (ETRTO) metric sizes are within the standard specifications established for the P-metric sizes as follows: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 155SR12 P155/80R12 155SR13 P155/80R13 165SR13 P165/80R13 165SR14 P165/80R14 165SR15 P165/80R15

Additionally, we would like to add the following sizes to our line: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 175SR13 P175/80R13 185SR13 P185/80R13 175SR14 P175/80R14

Please advise us if the dual markings upon the tires, assuming the specifications are proper for the P-metric sizes, would be acceptable under FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. applicable regulations. Your immediate reply would be greatly appreciated as we would like to start this program very soon.

Very truly yours,

RIKEN AMERICA, INC.;

Gary M. Ceazan -- Vice President

cc: B. Ceazan; M. Levitt; Y. Okamoto

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

ID: 1982-2.7

DATE: 04/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Wheel Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you noted that your company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodyear, wants to import rims from Lemmerz, a West German manufacturer, and mark those rims with the Goodyear name and trademark. This would be similar to the tires sold, for example, with Sears or Montgomery Ward labels and trademarks on the sidewalls. Your question concerns the requirement in section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120, which specifies that each rim be marked with "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." You correctly recognized that Lemmerz would have to be identified as the actual manufacturer, and asked if the block letter "L" would be a sufficient identification. Imprinting an "L" on the rims manufactured for Goodyear by Lemmerz would satisfy the requirement of Standard No. 120.

In the notice initially establishing Standard No. 120 (41 FR 3478, January 23, 1976), this agency stated, "The rim manufacturer is free to use his name, trademark, or a symbol of his choice." The only limitation on this freedom is that the information cannot be presented in a deceptive or confusing manner. In the circumstances you have described, a consumer with a complaint or problem with the rims would know to contact Goodyear about the rims, and Goodyear would know that the block letter "L" indicated that the rim had been manufactured for them by Lemmerz. This would not be confusing or deceptive. Hence, the purpose of the labeling requirement is fulfilled, so Goodyear is free to use the letter "L" as the indicator that the rim was actually manufactured by Lemmerz.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION

February 23, 1982

STEPHEN R. KRATCKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratcke:

At your suggestion I am formally requesting the Chief Counsel to issue an opinion on compliance with 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d).

As indicated during my telephone call, Motor Wheel Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and as such is responsible for Goodyear Metal Products, a producer of rims and wheels for on and off-highway commercial application. In conjunction with the parent company we are presently contemplating introduction of a super-single tire and wheel assembly to replace duals on truck trailers. Without knowing market potential Motor Wheel is hesitant to make the wheels and has elected to temporarily purchase the necessary wheels from a European source. Until such time as a final make or buy decision is made we propose to buy wheels from Lemmerz of West Germany.

Our inquiry is directed toward what NHTSA will accept as a trademark or symbol in lieu of the manufacturer's name on the rim as called for in 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d). Lemmerz identification on their rims is their name. We propose that the block letter 'L' be used in lieu of the full name so that we can imprint Goodyear's name and trademark for customer identification.

Is such a symbol acceptable to NHTSA? It is our understanding that Lemmerz is the only wheel producer worldwide whose name begins with 'L'. We would appreciate an early response to our inquiry as there is an eight to ten week lead time plus transit on orders placed with Lemmerz.

Please advise.

Sincerely,

Dale R. Martin