ID: 77-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Lamar Gudger - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977, addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.

Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his area of operation which is considerably less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.

Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirement for retreaded tires.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter to Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject. You may be interested to know that a recent meeting with representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.

SINCERELY,

Encls. Constituent's LTR. To Sen. MAGNUSON DATED AUG. 3, 1977

Congress of The United States House of Representatives

June 15, 1977

Norman Sultan

First, let me apologize for my delay in responding to your letter of May 27, 1977. I have noted your concern over the provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requiring tire registration and the fact that the rate of response is now less than ten percent and that the added expense for such return "is simply just not worth it".

We were in contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the study which you cited which is to be conducted on the advisability of making such program voluntary and were informed that this has been under consideration for some time. In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, I am today taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the appropriate officials at this Administration in order that they might have the benefit of your views and an opportunity to supply up-to-date infromation on the study. Upon receipt of a response I will forward you a copy. I also appreciate having your views in regard to an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Fortunately in Western North Carolina and in many other areas, the Better Business Bureau and private agencies are working effectively to protect the consumer from fraud and oppression. Moreover, the North Carolina Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General each maintain an assistant or a division to prosecute persons who defraud the public by false and fradulent sales practices. For these reasons and because I generally oppose creating new federal agencies and imposing more bureaucratic regulations, I expect to vote against the Agency for Consumer Advocacy.

The House Government Committee reported H. R. 6805 May 10th and it could reach the House Floor soon. I will certainly keep your observations about the bill in mind when it comes up for a vote.

With best wishes and kind personal regards.

Lamar Gudger Member of Congress

bcc: NHTSA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON

May 27, 1977

The Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives House Office Building

In 1966 the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains a provision on tire registration. The law went into effect six years ago and has caused tire dealers a lot of expense and very little satisfaction. Our rate of response from small dealers in this registration card mailing is now probably running less than 10% and, in my opinion, during the six years, we feel that the added expense for the return is simply just not worth it.

I have just recently learned that the National Highway Traffic Administration will conduct a study on the advisability of making this program voluntary. We hope that the law can be changed to make the registration voluntary because as we said before, the expense is unnecessary and the customer does not want it.

While I am at it, I might as well tell you that I think the passage of the Consumer Agency Billing which creates an independent agency for consumer advocacy. I am against the creation of this agency because I firmly believe that communications between consumers and retailers, particularly in my industry, can be improved by the establishment of a consumer council "which can be adapted and run by local and area tire dealer groups". You fellows must not have thought too much about this agency yourselves since it only passed by one vote.

I am sure you have gotten acclamated to the ways of Washington by now so with best regards to you and yours.

Norman Sultan

ID: 77-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 31, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exists required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exists in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exists. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exists in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 31, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton Subject: FMVSS - 217, Specific to Emergency Doors - Relating to New York State School Bus Regulations - New York State Department of Transportation.

We respectfully request a decision of the legality of the seat placement in the case of side emergency door(s) as noted in S5.4.2.1(b), when you also have a rear emergency door that complies with S5.2.3.1.

Our request speaks only to school buses, and vehicles of 10,000 pounds or greater. New York State required the following emergency doors. Passengers Doors Location 17-30 1 Rear Center 31-48 2 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side 49-66 2 Same as 31-48 67 or more 3 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side (1) Right Side

As can be seen by the chart the State of New York exceeds the F.M.V.S.S.-217 Section S5.2.3.1(a) by the addition of one or two extra doors.

Our request is that we be permitted to place a seat in the side door opening (Ref. 5.4.2.1(b). In other words, the last sentence of this section "A vertical Transverse, etc. . . . . . ." be declared null and void, yet the placement of the seat in relation to the door and for seat to the rear would not prevent the door to be used as an emergency exit.

To qualify as an emergency exit, seat placement and the door opening would permit the passage of the ellipsoid as specified in S5.2.2(b).

Should you desire additional information, kindly contact the writer.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: 77-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of August 19, 1977, we advise you that your mistake in referencing S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 instead of S4.5.1 in your earlier letter of May 13, 1977, does not alter our previous interpretation of June 16, 1977.

Your design appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the headlamp beam switching system with S4.5.1 when installed in a motor vehicle.

YOURS TRULY,

AUGUST 19, 1977

Ref NOA-30

Joseph J Levin, Jr Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Lucas 21SA Headlamp Switch Circuit

We thank you for your opinion on the subject switch circuitry that we requested in our letter dated May 13, 1977.

Inadvertently, we had referred to section S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 108 when requesting your help, instead of section S4.5.1 of standard 108.

Section S4.5.1 referes to the SAE recommended practice J564a "Headlamp Beam Switching" and it is part 4 of this standard which we are primarily concerned with, that is, "the switch shall be designed so that the headlight circuits are never maintained open" (The absence of a dead spot).

We again submit the wiring circuitry for the subject headlamp switch and ask that you re-evaluate this circuit as per section S4.5.1 and forward your opinion to us.

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

cc: K. J. JONES 21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphic omitted) (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text)

JUN 16 1977

Eric E. Gough Staff Assistant (Technical) Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

DEAR MR. GOUGH:

This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether the circuitry diagram that you enclosed would allow compliance with S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.2 requires that "each vehicle shall have a means for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, April 1964 . . . ." Your diagram appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the system with S4.5.2 when installed in a motor vehicle. The entity legally responsible for compliance with S4.5.2, of course, is the vehicle manufacturer who must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

YOURS TRULY,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: MR. VINSON; MR. CARTER

MAY 13, 1977 The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our sister company in Birmingham England, Lucas Electrical Limited, requests clarification of Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment - and SAE Recommended Practice J564, which is referenced in Standard 108, Section 4.5.2.

We submit a diagram of a four headlamp installation in which a Lucas Model 21SA switch and a normally closed relay is used to ensure that the headlight circuits cannot be held in the open condition. Manual and auto reset switches are also included in the circuit to ensure correct circuit operation. We are also submitting traces showing the transient voltage conditions when switching from:

a) Main beam to dip beam

b) Dip beam to main beam

This circuitry we have developed allows, as far as we are aware, for us to comply with Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108. We look forward to receiving whatever comments you deem applicable and will be pleased to supply additional material if you so desire.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA INC

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

ENC

21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphics omitted)

b) LUCAS 21SA SHY DIP BEAM --> MAIN BEAM

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

ID: 77-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bruce Ducker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1977, letter requesting copies of regulations issued pursuant to section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).

I am enclosing a copy of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations). This part details the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the agency upon tire manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and manufacturers of motor vehicles. In response to your question concerning the availability of customer lists, the agency has not issued any regulations on that point. You should note that these customer lists are retained by the manufacturer, not by the agency. Therefore, only the manufacturer would be in the position to divulge his customer lists. Should the agency obtain customer lists, they would not be disclosed unless disclosure was determined to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act as permitted by section 158(b).

SINCERELY,

BRUCE DUCKER ATTORNEY AT LAW

August 2, 1977

Office of the General Counsel Department of Transportation

Can you please supply me with a copies of regulations adopted by the Secretary pursuant to Section 158(b), of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492. I am particularly interested in all rules and regulations which "provide reasonable assurance that customer lists of any dealer and distributor, and similar information, will not be made available to any person other than the dealer or distributor . . . ."

BRUCE DUCKER

ID: 77-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking several questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses for purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. These seats are not considered "school bus seats" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.

In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should a non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.

In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheel-chair in close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

September 15, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS-222 and FMVSS-217 We are enclosing three (3) prints of a proposed Model 2200 with a seating plan for handicapped and non-handicapped persons.

Several questions have arisen concerning the legality of the proposed seating plan, and we are requesting your advice on these issues:

1. The side facing seats over the rear wheelhouses do not have to meet FMVSS-222 as per 571.222 (amended) S4, Definitions as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 134 - Monday, July 12, 1976. Are we correct in this case?

2. The other seats - 8 in number and all forward facing - must meet FMVSS - 222, are we correct in this case?

3. The preamble on page 28508 of the aforementioned Federal Register speaks to, and we quote "The decision to withdraw requirements for side facing used by handicapped or convalescent students will result in cost savings to manufacturers and purchasers. The action may encourage production of specialized buses that otherwise not be built if the seating were subject to the standard." Since it speaks only to the handicapped or convalescent, what if non-handicapped person occupies the seat? This can occur frequently since most of these buses are used for both non and also handicapped persons. Are we in compliance?

4. This question deals with FMVSS 2.7. As indicated in our floor plan, one wheelchair is close proximity to the rear emergency door. Since a wheelchair is movable and not an occupant seat, is the position of the chair in conflict with the FMVSS-S5.4.2.1(a)?

Once again we will mention that the configuration is of a specialized vehicle.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specification Engineer

ID: 77-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Trade Group of Ohio, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamson of our Ohio regional office.

You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that is designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and "what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A."

The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessory in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safety devices.

Yours Truly,

INTERNATIONAL TRADE GROUP OF OHIO, INC.

October 14, 1977

Don Williamson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

At the suggestion of John Pichler of the Ohio Highway Safety Department I am writing to you for some assistance.

Now, before reading further, look at the two enclosures with this letter. I came across the unit at the recent IAA show in Frankfurt, Germany. It is an emergency warning light for vehicles. It turns on automatically under impact or it can be switched on in case of emergency from a dash-mounted switch.

I am interested in some expert advice in two areas.

1. Would such a device be considered legal on U.S. cars on U.S. highways? While the current color is amber, it can be easily made any color that would be legal.

2. What steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.?

If necessary I can certainly come to Chicago to show you a unit and discuss its operation and use in more detail.

James E. Reider President

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

A B L THE AMBER WARNING LIGHT

ABL - everyone's amber warning

ABL - the automatic warning flasher has a dual safety function:

1. ABL switches on automatically without any human intervention immediately on a traffic accident.

2. You can switch the ABL on by hand in hazardous situations and to secure a stationary vehicle.

The ABL therefore secures both life and vehicle.

In case of an accident, this panoramic amber flasher will warn anything from 5 to 10 cars following. By fitting the light to the rear right in front of the rear window, i.e. inside the car, you protect your ABL warning system against dirt and guarantee it the most effective position for rapid and effective visibility in an emergency. In particular, these advantages of the ABL supplement the statutory flasher system.

A further advantage is that you can switch the ABL on immediately if you break-down, run out of petrol or have to stop for other reasons and need not first leave the car to fetch a warning triangle or a lamp often equipped with empty batteries - from the boot. A further safety factor in your life - just think of the hazardous conditions on the motorway.

The ABL is connected up to the car battery (12 volts). Home fitting is no problem to the expert handy man.

The ABL has been registered by the Federal Road Traffic Office at Flensburg and granted type certificate 8502.

Please note:

the ABL secures your life and vehicle!

KONIG Instrument Engineering

ID: 77-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1977, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.4 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." Oshkosh trucks are equipped with split air brake systems. This system incorporates a parking brake system on the rear axles. You indicated that there are three conditions under which the parking brakes will apply:

Condition 1. - Parking Application.

The spring brakes are driver applied through a hand operated parking control.

Condition 2. - Rear Service Brake System Failure.

The spring brakes can be driver applied through the service brake foot operated treadle valve control in the event of a failure in the rear service brake system.

Condition 3. - Spring Brake Cavity Pressure Loss.

A component failure which allows air pressure to exhaust from the spring cavity of the rear brake chambers will cause the spring brakes (parking brakes) to apply. This condition is not driver initiated."

You have interpreted Condition 2 as the only "service brake" application since it is the only one of the three that is driver-initiated through the service brake control, and that stop lamp activation under the other two Conditions is not required by Standard No. 108.

This will confirm your interpretation. With respect to Condition 1, we do not consider that driver application of the parking brake portion of the service brake system is "application of the service brakes" within the meaning of S4.5.4. Nor do we consider that activation of the parking brakes through component failure is "application of the service brakes", your Condition 3.

SINCERELY,

August 29, 1977

Chief Counsel NHTSA

Subject: FMVSS 108 Stop Lamp Circuitry Interpretation Request Oshkosh Truck Corporation equips its trucks and truck tractors with split air brake systems. The Bendix-Westinghouse Corporation has a publication which very concisely explains the operation of a split air brake system like the one adopted by Oshkosh Truck. A copy of this publication "Bendix-Westinghouse Dual Air Brake System" is attached.

As explained on page 5 of the Bendix publication, the spring brakes on the rear axles are the vehicle's parking brakes. There are, however, three conditions in which the spring brakes will apply.

Condition 1. - Parking Application.

The spring brakes are driver applied through a hand operated parking control. Refer to page 5 of the attachment.

Condition 2. - Rear Service Brake System Failure.

The spring brakes can be driver applied through the service brake foot operated treadle valve control in the event of a failure in the rear service brake system. Refer to page 6 of the attachment.

Condition 3. - Spring Brake Cavity Pressure Loss.

A component failure which allows air pressure to exhaust from the spring cavity of the rear brake chambers will cause the spring brakes (parking brakes) to apply. This condition is not driver initiated.

FMVSS 108 requires that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes (para. 4.5.4) but does not require that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the parking brakes. Although all three of the above conditions are possible with the vehicle in motion, Oshkosh Truck Corporation interprets condition 2 as the only "service brake" application of the three described in that this spring brake application is the only one of the three that is driver initiated through the service brake control. In its interpretation of FMVSS 108 Oshkosh Truck Corporation has determined that stop lamp activation is not mandatory when the spring brakes are applied by conditions 1 or 3 described above (regardless of the vehicle's FMVSS 121 status).

Oshkosh Truck requests written confirmation. Your immediate attention to this request will be greatly appreciated.

Stephen C. Nimmer Senior Supervising Engineer

[Publication Omitted.]

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.

ID: 77-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: One bus manufacturer, Recreational Vehicles, Inc., is currently manufacturing buses from one model vehicle (GMC-RV) that uses a knock-out rear window for the rear emergency exit. The rear window has a ring inserted in the rubber seal that allows the window to fall out or be easily pushed out after the ring is pulled outward (see attached pictures of converted GMC-RV).

Section 5.4, FMVSS No. 217, does not address the performance requirements of this type of window for meeting the performance requirements of a rear emergency exit.

We request an interpretation regarding the applicability of this type of knock-out rear window for meeting the performance requirements of a rear emergency exit.

ATTACH.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald H. Carter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of August 24, 1977, and October 8, 1977, concerning your Ford F-150 pickup truck.

The November 1976 date on your truck's certification label refers only to the date of actual manufacture of the vehicle, not its model year. Virtually all manufacturers, including Ford, utilize a model year which does not correspond to the calendar year. Typically, for American manufacturers, this model year begins on September 1 of the previous calendar year, i.e., model year 1977 began on September 1, 1976. Manufacturers usually begin manufacture of their vehicles as early as July in order to have sufficient vehicles in their showrooms by the September start of the model year.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards specify a date on which their requirements become effective. Thus, the manufacturer must indicate by the certification label that its vehicles are in compliance with all Federal standards in effect on the date of the vehicles' manufacture. Whether a vehicle is marketed as a particular model year vehicle depends upon the manufacturer's own marketing practice. The certification date does not represent the model year date.

Finally, your first letter stated that your vehicle was ordered on November 4, 1976, with a 3 month delivery interval. Every manufacturer produces a large number of vehicles before there are orders for a specific vehicle, and maintains them in various storage locations around the country. When the manufacturer receives an order from a dealership for a specific vehicle, it will first determine whether it already has such a vehicle in stock, and if it does, it will ship that vehicle rather than specially manufacture a new vehicle.

However, if there is no identical vehicle in stock, it will manufacture one specifically for that order, which can take from a few days to several months to program into the assembly line and produce. As a dealership has no way to know in advance whether the vehicle it ordered is in stock or will have to be specially manufactured, it will often state a delivery date that anticipates the longest possible delay which would result from special manufacture. There is thus no reason for concern over the fact that your vehicle was manufactured in the same month it was ordered. Either Ford had such a vehicle in stock, or was able to manufacture one with very little delay.

I hope that this letter has answered your concerns.