ID: 001059GF

Mr. David Regan
Trecan Combustion Limited
4049 St. Margarets Bay Road
Hubley, NS, B3Z IC2
Canada

Dear Mr. Reagan:

This is in response to your fax of February 21, 2003, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations governing vehicle certification found in 49 CFR 567. In your fax, you stated that your company manufactures trailers and intends to import them into the United States. You have enclosed a photocopy of a sample certification label that you intend to attach to your trailers. During a subsequent phone conversation, you indicated that the sample label is for a single axle trailer. You asked us to determine whether your sample certification label would be acceptable for use in the United States.

By way of background, 49 CFR Part 567 specifies content, location and other requirements for the certification label or tag to be affixed to motor vehicles as required by section 49 U.S.C. 30115, 32504, and 33108. By affixing the label, the manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards.

567.4(g) specifies the contents of the certification label or tag, which must include the following, in the order shown (emphasis added):

(1) Name of manufacturer.
(2) Month and year of manufacture.
(3) "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" or "GVWR."
(4) "Gross Axle Weight Rating" or "GAWR," followed by the appropriate value in pounds for each axle, identified in order from front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second intermediate, rear).
(5) The statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." The expression "U.S." or "U.S.A." may be inserted before the word "Federal".
(6) Vehicle identification number.
(7) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in 46 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).

The enclosed sample label contains all the information required by 567.4(g). However, some of the information in your label is out of order. As previously stated, 567.4(g) specifies that the information on the certification label must appear as it is listed in the standard. Therefore, the items within your sample certification label must be rearranged in order to comply with 567.4(g). An example of the appropriate arrangement of the information found on your sample label appears below:

MANUFACTURED BY: TRECAN COMBUSTION LIMITED DATE   DECEMBER 2002 GVWR   6,500 KG (14,335 LB) GAWR ALL 5,806 KG (12,800 LB) TIRES   275/70R22.5 H RIMS   22.5X8.25 COLD TIRE INFL   827 kPa (120 PSI) SINGLE THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE US FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. VIN   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TYPE:   TRAILER

Please be advised that your certification label need not look exactly like the example above. However, the information within your label must appear in the exact same order. Because we are unsure whether the enclosed sample label is a scaled copy or a life-size representation, we note that 567.4(g) requires that the label be lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high.

For additional information for trailer manufacturers please visit our web site at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/trailer002.pdf. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSA's certification requirements for trailers, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.4/11/03

ID: 001112cm EZOn

Ms. Lori Crouzillat
Safety Advisor
E-Z-ON Products, Inc.
605 Commerce Way West
Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Crouzillat:

This is in response to your letter of February 24, 2003, in which you ask for a clarification of the labeling requirement for child safety harnesses that mount to school bus seat backs.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 requires child safety harnesses [1] manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, that attach to school bus seat backs to be labeled with the warning specified in FMVSS No. 213. In your letter, you state that several states and members of the school bus industry believe that "seatmount products" in use, that were manufactured before February 1, 2003, are not in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 because they are not labeled with a warning. You ask whether the agency requires all harnesses, irrespective of manufacture date, to be labeled with the warning contained in FMVSS No. 213 in order to be in compliance with that standard. The answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30111. NHTSA has used its authority to issue FMVSS No. 213, regulating child restraint systems, in order to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. Each new child restraint system, including harnesses, must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213.

FMVSS No. 213 generally prohibits a child restraint system from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. (See S5.3.1.) However, to facilitate the safe transportation of preschool and special needs children, the agency amended FMVSS No. 213 on an interim basis to exclude from this prohibition harnesses manufactured for use on school bus seats. (67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002.) The interim rule went into effect October 22, 2002, and NHTSA has decided in the exercise of its enforcement discretion, not to take enforcement action with respect to harnesses manufactured before that date. [2] For seat-mount restraints manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, the interim rule requires them to be labeled with the following warning:

Warning! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained occupants. (67 FR at 64820)

The labeling requirement applies only to the restraints manufactured on or after the specified date (February 1, 2003). Furthermore, the labeling requirement applies to manufacturers of the seat-mount harnesses and does not impose any requirement on the end user to obtain labels for those harnesses manufactured before February 1, 2003.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/18/03





---

[1] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, uses the term "harness." Some manufacturers use the term "vest." We consider the terms "harness" and "vest" to be interchangeable.

[2] The interim rule expires December 1, 2003. The agency is currently reviewing the interim rule to determine if it should be made permanent. (67 FR 64818.)

ID: aiam1696

Dear Mr. Dvorachek:#This responds to your letter of October 25, 1974 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, as it applies to the labeling of air brake hose end fittings which use sacrificial sleeves.#>>>S7.2 states:#In the case of an end fitting intended for use in a reuseable assembly, 'AI' or 'AII' shall indicate use with Type I or type II hose respectively.<<<#Since an end fitting which uses a sacrificial sleeve is defined by S4 to be a permanently attached end fitting, it does not fall into the classification 'End fitting[s] intended for use in a reuseable assembly.' Therefore, it must be labeled with the designation 'A' rather than any of the following: 'AI', 'AII', 'AI-AII'.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2813

Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your April 27, 1978, letter asking whether a sampl certification label that you submitted complies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Part 567, *Certification*.; Military vehicles are exempted from compliance with Federal safet standards. Therefore, the application of the safety standards to these vehicles is a matter of contract between a manufacturer and the military. Since the NHTSA does not mandate Federal safety standards for these vehicles, it is not necessary to put certification labels on them. If you choose to include a label with a vehicle, the label would not be required to comply with any Federal regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3701

Dear Mr. Negro: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of m staff with respect to conformance of a planned stop lamp design with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; The design comprises two compartments separated by a reflex reflector One of the compartments will meet the photometric requirements for a stop lamp, in your judgment. The other will not, but in conjunction with the first compartment 'the requirements can be met.' You have asked if this arrangement is acceptable pursuant to paragraph S4.1.1.6 which allows photometric requirements to be met by a combination of compartments or lamps.; Paragraph S4.1.1.6 is intended to cover replacement stop lamps fo vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and September 1, 1978, when the SAE standard for stop lamps incorporated into Standard No. 108 was SAE J586b, September 1966. As such, its requirements are not relevant to your concerns.; However, SAE J586c, August 1970, whose requirements do apply to sto lamps, appears to permit your design. Under paragraph 3.1, where the distance between filament centers of two stop lamps does not exceed 22 inches (presumably your design) the photometric readings of both lamps must be combined to meet the photometric requirements of Table 1 of J586c applicable to two lighted sections. However, the combined candela must not exceed the specified total of 360 for two lighted sections.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4210

Dear Mr. Gough: This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1986, to this Office asking for confirmation of your understanding 'that other light sources can be added to a replaceable bulb headlamp, such as a parking lamp or signal lamp function, as long as the lamps operate independently of each other and are in full compliance with FMVSS 108.'; Your interpretation is essentially correct, and I am enclosing a cop of a recent letter that we sent to Ichikoh Industries on the same subject. In order to be in full compliance with Standard No. 108, if a replaceable bulb headlamp also incorporates a turn signal lamp, the requisite separation distance or candela ratio specified by the standard must be met.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1012

Dear Mr. Fildew: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, in which yo asked about the responsibilities with respect to the motor vehicle safety standards of an automobile dealer who sends a new vehicle to specialty manufacturer for modifications. You asked whether the dealer must file reports as a final-stage manufacturer, or ascertain whether the specialty manufacturer has filed reports or certified the vehicle.; The final-stage manufacturer in the case you describe is the specialt manufacturer, and all the responsibilities that pertain to that category lie with him, not the dealer. There is also no obligation for the dealer to ascertain that the specialty manufacturer has filed reports.; The answer with respect to the dealer ascertaining that the final stage manufacturer has certified the vehicle is somewhat less clear. There is no direct responsibility for this, a failure of the final-stage manufacturer to certify would not itself bring down any penalties on the dealer. However, the certification is designed to protect the dealer, in cases of nonconformity with the standards of which the dealer does not have actual knowledge. (See sections 108(b)(2) and 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2), 1403.) To put it negatively, if the vehicle were completed in violation of applicable standards and it were not certified, a dealer might be considered to have sold a nonconforming vehicle without the exercise of due care, in violation of the Act. The question is further complicated by the fact that not all alterations would rise to the level of manufacturing (addition of trailer hitches probably would not, for example). and these minor changes would not require additional certification by anyone. In sum, although there is no direct legal obligation for the dealer to see that there is a certification where there are major alternations, it is a very good idea, for his own protection.; The regulations on this subject are codified in Parts 567 and 568 o Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The October 1, 1972 edition of that title is current with respect to those parts. We do have a proposal outstanding to make some amendments regarding the certification of altered vehicles (37 FR 22800, October 25, 1972), and an amended rule may be issued in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4640

"Dear Mr. Cantleberry: This responds to your letter concerning Safet Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked several questions about the standard's requirements for parking brakes. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your first question concerns section S5.2. That section requires specified vehicles to be 'manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . .' You asked what is meant by a 'parking brake system of a friction type with a mechanical means.' In understanding section S5.2, I believe it is helpful to focus on three aspects of the language quoted above. First, a vehicle must be 'manufactured with a parking brake system.' The term 'parking brake' is defined in 49 CFR Part 57l.3 as 'a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle.' Second, the required parking brake system must be 'of a friction type,' i.e., it must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. For example, a parking brake which presses a brake shoe against a brake drum operates by friction, whereas the parking pawl of an automatic transmission does not. Third, the required parking brake system must have a 'solely mechanical means to retain engagement.' Thus, the parking brake cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air or electricity. Your second question concerns section S5.2.2. You asked whether it is necessary to meet S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 (i.e., all three subsections) in order to comply with section S5.2.2, or just one of the subsections. Section S5.2.2 provides that '(a) vehicle of a type described in S5.2.l at the option of the manufacturer may meet the requirements of S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 instead of the requirements of S5.2.l,' if the vehicle has a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism, and the parking mechanism must be engaged before the ignition key can be removed. (Emphasis added.) Given section S5.2.2's use of the word 'and' (as highlighted above), it is necessary to meet the requirements of all three subsections in order to comply with that section's compliance option. You also asked whether a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have a hand or foot operated control for the brake system. In responding to this question, I assume that the term 'parking control in the transmission' refers to a parking pawl. As noted above, a vehicle manufactured with a parking pawl alone, without an additional parking brake, would not meet section S5.2's requirement that the vehicle be 'manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . .' Thus, a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have an additional parking brake 'of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. . . .' Finally, you asked whether a vehicle with a hydraulic locking system would be sufficient to meet the requirements specified in S5.2.2. This question was asked both for a vehicle that has a parking control in the transmission and for a vehicle with a manual transmission. The requirement that a vehicle be 'manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement' cannot be met by a hydraulic locking system, since such the parking brakes on such a system are held by fluid pressure rather than by 'a solely mechanical means.' Thus, regardless of whether a vehicle has a parking pawl or has a manual transmission, a hydraulic locking system cannot be used to meet Standard No. l05's parking brake requirements. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3185

Dear Mr. Libman: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1979, inquiring if it i permissible for your suppliers to cut off the DOT serial numbers on used tires before selling those tires to your company. You stated in your letter that your company buys used tires from several companies. These tires generally either have cuts in the tread or sidewalls or are out of round. Your company then resells the tires to another company, which resells the tires to the public.; The answer to your question is no. The presence of the DO identification number on tires is required by several of this agency's regulation. Our tire identification and record keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) requires that each manufacturer place the DOT number on at least one sidewall of each tire that it manufactures. The number serves several purposes. It is indispensable in aiding consumers to identify tires subject to a recall campaign for safety defects and noncompliance with the safety standards. It also aids this agency in enforcing its tire safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109 (Passenger car tries, 49 CFR 571.119) and 119 (Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.119) require that each tire manufacturer certify that its tires conform to all applicable Federal safety standards by branding or molding the DOT number on the tire.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), states that, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on... an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' By removing the DOT identification number from a tire, the person would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tires which is included on the tire for compliance with the requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1442

Dear Mr. Thompson: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for information in behal of Mr. Robert J. Jones, concerning the commercial offer he received for a device that would defeat the ignition interlock device found on 1974 model passenger cars.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorize the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards, one of which requires occupant crash protection, one aspect of which is the ignition interlock system. Section 108(a)(1) of the Act prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or the importation of any motor vehicle which does not conform to the standards. Our regulatory authority over new vehicles ends, however, with the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. While we can prohibit arrangements between a dealer and a purchaser to disconnect the interlock, where they are part of the sales transaction, we have no remedy against arrangements to defeat the safety features made after the sales transaction.; Nevertheless, while selling devices intended to defeat safety equipmen may be legal, we consider such practices reprehensible since they increase the chances of death and injury on the highways. We are considering a variety of remedies for the situation reported by Mr. Jones.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel