ID: Koito.2

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to manufacture and sell a headlamp that automatically reduces intensity when the vehicle is stopped. Your letter stated that the lamp (which includes a fail-safe performance feature) would operate at full intensity when the vehicle is in forward motion, but that an electronic light source control gear would reduce the intensity once the vehicle comes to a rest. According to your letter, "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," and you further suggested that such headlamps would have the potential for significant energy conservation (about a 20-40% reduction in wattage), depending upon the optical design of the headlamps. As discussed below, we believe that the intensity-reducing headlamps described in your letter would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108, because the would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard.49 U.S.C. 30122.

As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means."

Your proposed headlamp would not fall within any of the standards express exceptions, and therefore, must be "steady-burning." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g., February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall). However, as stated in your letter, your proposed headlamp would routinely experience perceptible intensity changes resulting in a 20-40% reduction in wattage, so the lamp would not meet above definition of "steady-burning."

There are several reasons for the requirement for headlamps to be steady-burning. For example, several States have expressed concern that lights of variable intensity could be confused with emergency vehicles, which are allowed to have flashing headlamps. We also note that motorcycle headlamp modulation, while permitted under S5.5.10(c), must meet the requirements of S7.9.4; the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. Furthermore, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals.

In your letter, you pointed to our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein in support of your position that Standard No. 108 should permit headlamps that reduce intensity when stopped. The letter to Mr. Goldstein discussed "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions. You quoted from the portion of that letter which provides, "The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified".However, your letter omitted the immediately preceding sentence, which provided, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs".

The situation presented in your letter is distinguishable from the one presented in our letter to Mr. Goldstein. In the case of gradational DRLs, the lamps would be expected to determine an appropriate level of intensity based upon ambient lighting conditions and then maintain that level until conditions had changed sufficiently to potentially warrant a further change in intensity. In that case, intensity changes would be expected to occur infrequently and could occur gradually, such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers.

In contrast to gradational DRLs, the changes in intensity that would accompany your proposed headlamp design would be anticipated to result in frequent modulation, particularly during instances of stop-and-go city driving. Assuming that the intensity change is perceptible, we believe that such a design could be a source of distraction to other drivers, which could have negative consequences for safety. Accordingly, we believe that the headlamp design presented in your letter would not meet the requirements of S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/1/05

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: kroger.ztv

Mr. Richard C. Kroger
Corporate Counsel
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474

Dear Mr. Kroger:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 2003, addressed to David "Comen" (Coleman), which we received on May 5. You seek clarification as to whether you are subject to the TREAD Acts early warning reporting (EWR) requirements set out in Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your company manufactures trucks exclusively for the United States Army. You asserted that feedback reports you receive from the Army on your trucks are usually "purposely vague and prevent any meaningful review or truck evaluation." In the event that negative information might be received regarding a trucks performance, you pointed out that furnishing us with this information could result in an enemy gaining knowledge that it could put to tactical use. You argued that "it would seem that the intent of the Act (protecting the consumer public at large) is inapplicable to our situation."

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recently observed that under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the military need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NTEA asked whether such vehicles should be counted as part of a manufacturers production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc. We replied on May 14, 2003, that:

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to [the defect program or] other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

By "some trucks," we mean trucks that are the counterparts of trucks that a manufacturer produces for non-military use. Thus, reports would not be required under the EWR rules for military personnel carriers. On the other hand, reports would be required for pickup trucks, vans, and sedans that have civilian counterparts.

You have informed us that your company does not produce trucks for civilian applications. In other words, there are no civilian counterparts. Based on this information, we do not consider your company subject to the EWR requirements.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/21/03

ID: kronosport.ztv

Mr. Edward A. Kron
President & CEO
Kronosport
Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market St., Suite A500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Mr. Kron:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 2003, describing four-wheeled pedal-electric vehicles that you manufacture which travel at a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. You have asked for "an exemption to NHTSAs speed requirement in order to allow our vehicles to be legally operated on roadways that have a posted speed limit of 35 mph or under."

NHTSA has no "speed requirement." We have established a category of motor vehicle called "Low-Speed Vehicle." In part, a Low-Speed Vehicle is defined as a four-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in l mile is more than 20 mph and not more than 25 mph. In adopting this definition, we made it clear that the individual States have the authority to prescribe requirements for the registration and use of Low-Speed Vehicles, including whether to allow Low-Speed Vehicles at all on roads under their jurisdiction, or to limit the roads on which they can be used.

Because the maximum speed of your vehicle is 12 mph, it is not a "Low Speed Vehicle." We do not know whether any State permits use on its public roads of vehicles with a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. We suggest that you consult with each State in which you intend to market your vehicle to determine whether your vehicles may use the public roads in that State.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.5/22/03

ID: label on booster seat

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