ID: label_color1307

Lori J. Crouzillat, Safety Advisor
E-Z-On Products, Inc., of Florida
605 Commerce Way West
Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Crouzillat:

This responds to your letter asking about the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.213, Child restraint systems, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted in an October 1, 2002, final rule (67 FR 61523; corrected 69 FR 11337). The rulemaking sought to provide for clearer and simpler child restraint system (CRS) labels.

To inform users about the consequences of not following CRS instructions, the October 2002 rule required, among other matters, that a CRS be affixed with a label that has an alert symbol and a heading, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," followed by bulleted statements regarding proper use (S5.5.2(g)).The agency required one portion of the heading (an alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING!") to be in black text on a yellow background, as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i) ^[1] for the air bag warning label required for rear-facing child restraints.

Yellow Background

You first ask whether the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" must be on a yellow background. The answer is no. In the preamble to the October 2002 final rule, the agency recognized the similarity between the new heading required for CRS warning labels and that of the air bag warning label. So that manufacturers may take advantage of this similarity when designing or producing labels, S5.5.2(g)(2) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" may be printed on either a yellow or a white background, at the manufacturers option. Accordingly, the warning label required by S5.5.2 must have either: (a) the alert symbol and the entire statement, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," on a yellow background with black text; or (b) the alert symbol and the word "WARNING!" on a yellow background with black text, and the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" on a white background with black text.

Separate Labels

You next ask if the warning label heading and bulleted points are required to be on a single label or if a portion of the heading could be on a separate label placed directly above the remaining label components. Our answer is the warning label heading may be on a separate label, provided certain requirements are met.

The agency explained in the preamble to the October 2002 final rule that separate label components are permissible so long as the separate components are attached to the CRS in the correct order with no intervening labels. 67 FR at 61526, col. 2. ^[2]As such, your company is permitted to have a label component printed with the alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING" placed directly above a second label component printed with the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS injury can occur," followed by the applicable bulleted statements. The separate label components must meet the provisions of S5.5.2(g)(3).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.3/31/04





---

[1] The October 2002 final rule inadvertently referenced S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) instead of subparagraph (k)(3)(i). We have corrected this reference in a document published on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11337)(copy enclosed).

[2] See also S5.5.2(g)(3), which was added to FMVSS No. 213 by the March 2004 final rule.

ID: Label_legibility001589

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, letter following up on recent correspondence between you and this office concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems.

Your earlier letter asked about the requirement in S5.5.1 and elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213 that child restraints be "permanently labeled" with certain information. You asked if we would consider the permanency requirement met if attempting to remove the label caused certain results, such as tearing of the label. We replied that, if the label met the described criteria and remained legible for the life of the restraint, we would consider it permanently attached.

In your follow up letter, you ask about a procedure you use to determine the legibility of the labeling. You state that the procedure, which you say was suggested by Transport Canada, involves applying three different cleaning solutions in sequence to the label with a piece of cheesecloth. After each solution is applied, you assess the legibility of the label and deem the wording legible if it is "legible to an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 305 mm." You state that this language is used in FMVSS No. 116, "Brake fluids," regarding legibility of labeling. You wish to know if such a procedure is acceptable for evaluating legibility under FMVSS No. 213.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, persons are prohibited from manufacturing or selling any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, this prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that the vehicle or item of equipment does not comply (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)). In our opinion, using the procedure you describe would be an exercise of reasonable care in making your certification. We assume that the procedure would expose the labeling to cleaning solutions representative of those used in the U.S.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/11/04

ID: label_removal_5298

Ms. Jennifer Ross
P.O. Box 49, 120 Place Versailles Station
Montreal, Quebec H1N 3TG
Canada




Dear Ms. Ross:

This responds to your letter in which you ask if an interior label on a motorcycle helmet may be removed by its owner. As you are writing from Canada, I note that my response refers only to regulation under the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With that clarification, U.S. Federal law does not prohibit an individual owner from removing labels from his or her motorcycle helmet after first retail sale of the helmet.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. S5.6 of the standard establishes a labeling requirement that specifies information with which a helmet must be permanently and legibly labeled. FMVSS No. 218 specifies that the DOT symbol appear on the outer surface of the helmet but does not specify a location for placement of the additional information, except that it must be read easily without removing padding or any other permanent part.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured up until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122). In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Therefore, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed a label affixed to the exterior or interior of a helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218, then that entity would be making the label inoperative, in violation of U.S. Federal law.

This "make inoperative" provision does not extend to an individual consumer after a helmet is first sold for retail. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove or cover the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of U.S. Federal law.

If you have any further questions about motorcycle helmets, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.7/5/05

ID: Labelpermanency_6507

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, Ohio 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of the permanency requirement for labels under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, we would consider "permanent" a label conforming to the requirements you described in your letter and remaining legible for the life of the child restraint system (CRS) to which it is attached.

In your letter, you stated that your company believes that permanency definitions provided by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), when taken together with previous interpretations provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), provide an appropriate definition for label permanency, as it applies to a CRS. The ASTM standard for CRSs provides that a label, excluding a label attached by a seam, is permanent if, during an attempt to remove it: (1) the label cannot be removed without the aid of tools or solvents; (2) if it is a paper label, it tears into pieces; or (3) such action damages the surface to which it is attached. [1] Your letter also cited language from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 49 CFR Part 541, Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards, in which the agency stated that the removal of a label must "create a 'footprint' (i.e., physical evidence that an affixation was originally present or required to be present) on that part." [2]

S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 213 requires that each CRS be permanently labeled with specified information, including information on proper use. A CRS may not protect a child in a crash if the CRS is not properly installed or the child is not properly secured. The label provides a constant reminder on how to correctly use the restraint. [3] However, a label cannot be effective if it does not remain affixed to the restraint or cannot be read. Label permanency is particularly important for subsequent owners of a restraint, who may not have access to the original instructions. Further, the model and manufacturer information must remain legible in order to identify a restraint that is the subject of a recall.

For a label to be permanent, it must remain affixed and legible under normal conditions for the life of the restraint to which it is attached. If a label used by your company were to meet the ASTM and agency criteria you outlined in your letter and listed above, and remain legible for the life of the restraint, we would deem it permanently attached.

Note two caveats, however. Labels should not be attached in a manner that invites their removal. In a June 26, 1997, letter to Mr. Strawn Cathcart, we stated that an air bag warning label could not be sewn on only one side into a seam. We determined that, by virtue of the location of the label (where an infants head would be located) and ease of detachment by cutting, tearing or pulling off a single row of stitching, the sewn-in label invited removal. As such, we concluded that the label was unlikely to stay attached during the lifetime of the child restraint in satisfaction of the permanently affixed requirement of FMVSS No. 213.

Second, the durability of labels is evaluated under NHTSAs Ease of Use CRS rating program. If a label is already peeling when the new CRS is removed from the packaging material at the test lab, the CRS will receive a lower score on the durability of its label than a CRS whose label is not peeling.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref.213
d.12/18/03





---

[1] See, ASTM F 833 00, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and Strollers, Sections 7.8.1 and 7.8.2.

[2] 50 Federal Register 19728, 19731; May 10, 1985.

[3] 44 FR 72131, 72316; December 13, 1979.

ID: labelsonuppertetherandloweranchorage

Mr. John Nagel
AMSAFE Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043





Dear Mr. Nagel:

This responds to your letter of February 9, 2001, which you transmitted to this office via facsimile. In that letter, you ask whether under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), the following statement should be put on the lower anchorage belt and/or the upper tether belt:

"CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213/ FMVSS 302."

By lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt, you mean, respectively: (a) the straps of a child restraint system which attach to components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system (see S5.9(a) of FMVSS No. 213); and (b) the strap of a child restraint system to which a tether hook is attached (S5.9(b)). You explain that your company supplies the belts to a child restraint manufacturer, which then sells the belts with the completed child restraint. You also plan on selling the lower anchorage belts directly to parents who then use the belts to retrofit their existing child restraint systems.

Is the Label Required by FMVSS No. 213?

FMVSS No. 213 does not require you to put such a label on either belt. FMVSS No. 213 applies to new child restraint systems, and not to components of child restraints, such as the belts you supply to child restraint manufacturers.

Manufacturers of child restraints are required to certify that their child restraints meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213. They certify their restraints by placing a label on the child restraint system that reads: "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." (S5.5.2(e)). Because FMVSS No. 213 does not apply to component parts, such as lower anchorage belts or upper tether belts, which are supplied to manufacturers for installation in child restraints, such component parts are not required to have a similar label.

May You Voluntarily Label the Belts?

Whether the label is permissible depends, in part, on how you market and sell the belts. As noted above, you plan to market and sell the belts in two different ways. You plan to sell the lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt to manufacturers and you plan to sell the lower anchorage belt directly to the public. The answer to your question differs for each of these situations, so each situation will be discussed separately. One consideration to bear in mind is that a manufacturer cannot certify that its product meets the requirements of a standard if that particular standard does not actually apply to that product. To do so would be misleading to consumers.

1. Selling the Belts to a Manufacturer

A. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213"

Your label is permissible with respect to the statement on the tether strap that refers to FMVSS No. 213, ("CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213..."). However, S5.9 (a) of FMVSS No. 213 does not require child restraints to have the lower anchorage belts until September 1, 2002. A manufacturer cannot certify to a requirement that has not yet become mandatory. Accordingly, you may label the upper tether belt as conforming to FMVSS No. 213, but until September 1, 2002, you can not label the lower anchorage belt with a certification or a "conforms to FMVSS 213" statement.

B. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302"

You may label the belts "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302." Paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to S4 ("requirements") of FMVSS No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Thus, FMVSS No. 302 is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 213 and applies to the belts. Therefore, a label stating that the belts conform to FMVSS No. 302 would not be misleading.

2. Selling the Lower Anchorage Belts to the Public

You also wish to sell the lower anchorage belt with the abovementioned label directly to the public so consumers can purchase it to retrofit their existing child seats. The use of the label in this instance is not permissible. FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302 do not apply to items of equipment sold in the aftermarket. Accordingly, in this instance, you cannot label the lower anchorage belt as conforming to either FMVSS No. 213 or FMVSS No. 302 because doing so would be misleading.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#225#302
d.6/1/01

ID: nht68-1.35

DATE: 01/23/68

FROM: Howard A. Haffron; signature by Dowell H. Anders

TO: Thomas S. Foley; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8 to Congressional Liaison, Department of Transportation, in which you enclosed a letter of December 20 from your constituent James B. Mitchell of Spokane. Mr. Mitchell protests regulations then proposed and new adopted, promulgated jointly by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury, which cover importation of motor vehicles subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

These regulations, in essence, implement section 108 of the Act and state that motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (such as passenger cars including sports cars, but not including competition racing cars) cannot be imported into the United States unless they conform to all applicable standards prior to entry or are brought into conformity after entry. Consequently, any Ferrari manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and intended primarily for use on the public roads will be admitted to the United States if it conforms to all applicable standards or, in the alternative, if it can be brought into conformity within 90 days after entry or such other period as the district director of customs of the port of entry may allow for good cause shown.

ID: nht68-1.36

DATE: 02/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Contemporary Classics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Customs Bureau has forwarded to the Department of Transportation your recent letter commenting on the joint regulations proposed on November 30 and governing the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These regulations have now been issued in final form with changes made pursuant to comments received.

These regulations permit the entry of a racing car designed for use on a competition circuit. They do not prohibit the entry of antique, vintage, classic, and all other motor vehicles provided they were manufactured prior to January 1, 1968. The regulations follow the Act in denying entry to a motor vehicle designed primarily for use on the public roads which does not conform to, or cannot be brought into conformity with, applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I enclose for your information a copy of the Act and call your attention to section 108(b)(3) and (b)(4), under which the regulations were issued. I also enclose a copy of the regulations which became effective on January 10.

S. 2029, passed by the Senate in November and pending in the House, is a bill which, if enacted, will provide a procedure under which manufacturers of 500 or less motor vehicles per year may apply for relief from compliance upon a showing that conformance would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship, and that no undue hazard to the public would result. The Department supports the objectives of this legislation.

ID: nht68-1.37

DATE: 01/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: United States Auto Club

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Boyd has asked that we reply to your letter of November 27, 1967. Your letter raises questions concerning joint regulations to be issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation governing the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to motor vehicle safety standards.

You are correct in your understanding that the Act was not intended to apply to vehicles prepared for auto racing or race tracks and not intended for use on the public streets or highways.

The question you raised concerning the use of the words "by bona fide auto vehicle manufacturers" has also been raised by others who have commented on the proposed regulations. Accordingly, you will note that the regulations, a copy of which is attached, have been changed so as to eliminate this phraseology and make it clearer that vehicles intended for "competition" and which "will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads" may be admitted. This provision will not require an affidavit on the part of the importer but merely a declaration to this effect.

We believe that the regulations, as amended, will provide for the unhampered entry of foreign built race cars for the Indianapolis 500 race and other USAC sanctioned events.

ID: nht68-1.38

DATE: 04/30/68

FROM: DAVID A. FAY -- NHTSA OFFICE OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE

TO: J.E. MARTENS -- CHIEF AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEER AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Martens:

Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, "Reflecting Surfaces."

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 specifies reflectivity requirements for only the inside windshield molding itself -- not for the screws or fasteners used to attach the molding.

Sincerely,

ID: nht68-1.39

DATE: 02/20/68

FROM: H. S. BEAGLE -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

TO: EDWIN L. SLAGLE -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: J. R. SCHAEFFER -- ETL; A. R. CHICK -- ETL

TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205 -GLAZING MATERIALS

REF.1: ELECTRICALLY HEATED SAFETY GLASS FOR DEFOGGING

REF.2: TEST PROCEDURE PER USA STANDARD 226.1-1966

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2/21/68 FROM EDWIN L. SLAGLE OF D.O.T. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU TO H. S. BEAGLE OF ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES INC.

TEXT: The above subject reference No. 2 provides, in part, that safety glazing material be tested for regular (parallel) luminous transmittance (method unspecified), which value shall be not less than 70 per cent both before and after irradiation (ultraviolet are exposure). The word "parallel" means that the light beam used in making this measurement should be essentially collimated. This condition may be obtained by using a light source sufficiently distant from the test specimen that the rays are essentially parallel.

Our photometric laboratory has been performing this test satisfactorily for many years, using the apparatus shown in the attached photographs numbered 1 through 4, as follows:

Photo #1 - A general view, no glass in place, showing diaphragm plate and source of collimated beam above. Light source, positioned 48 inches above photo cell and shielded, is an incandescent monoplane tungsten-filament lamp calibrated for operation at the specified color temperature of 2854 degrees Kelvin.

#2 - Close up of diaphragm plate with 1-1/4-inch opening, positioned 3/4 inch above the color corrected photovoltaic cell. Cell is visible through diaphragm opening.

#3 - Set-up with glass specimen in place. Glass specimen shown has electrically conductive lines on one surface.

#4 - Close up of glass specimen on diaphragm plate.

In performing this measurement the test specimen is moved laterally across the diaphragm (aperture) to find and record the minimum transmittance value.

2

It is our belief that this test method is as suitable for evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass as it is for the same glass not so treated. As a matter of fact, it has been so employed in the past with respect to imported glass of the electrically heated type.

However, to avoid possible future problems concerning the acceptability of our test method, we are submitting this matter for your consideration at this time. The urgency of it is related to the long loud time with respect to production of electrically heated safety glass to provide for defogging of rear windows in motor vehicles.

We therefore respectfully ask for your written approval of the test method, as herein described, as being acceptable for purposes of evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass for compliance in this regard, with the requirements of MVSS No. 205.

The earliest possible response to this request would be most sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: photographs