Interpretation ID: nht69-1.17

DATE: 04/18/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Auto Test Division, Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of March 17, 1969, and March 26, 1969, pertaining to certain child restraint devices and whether or not they are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. Your specific questions and our corresponding answers are as follows:

Question No. 1: Which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209, which must not?

Answer No. 1: Child restraint devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209 if, by visual examination of the design and the advertising thereof, they are sold as being a Type 3 seat belt assembly. By definition, a Type 3 seat belt assembly is a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.

Question No. 2: How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not?

Answer No. 2: If the manifested purpose of any belt, strap, webbing or similar device is to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, then the belt has to comply with the applicable portions of Standard No. 209. There is a distinct difference between a "child seating system" and a seat belt used to restrain a child. "Child seating system" means an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a passenger car. This child seating system is not covered by Standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard.

Question No. 3: Is the criterion (that a given device must comply) whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury?

Answer No. 3: Whether or not the maker of a child restraining belt claims that the device offers protection against impact injury is not the criterion upon which the compliance interpretation is based. (Reference Answer No. 2.)

Further investigation is needed before we can provide an answer to your question pertaining to which specific manufacturers of the belts that you tested are in violation.

To assist you in your project on child restraint devices, we are enclosing the latest copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 and the copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on child restraint systems.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Enclosures: F-38 and 49 C.F.R. Part 371, Docket No. 2-15, Notice No. 2

March 17, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Consumers Union has under way a project on child restraint devices. As I told you briefly on the phone a couple of weeks ago, the question has come up, which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard 209, which must not? How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not? Is the criterion whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury? I talked to Joe O'Gorman about this problem at some length, but he was not able to provide an answer.

I hope that you, or someone in your office, can throw some light on this question for us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division--

Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc: Morris Kaplan

March 26, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

On March 21, I received a phone call from Joe O'Gorman in response to my letter of March 17 to you requesting advice on how to tell whether any given child restraint device is governed by the Type 3 requirements in Standard 209. I believe Joe now has a clear understanding of our question, and he is trying to obtain an answer.

In the meantime, we would like to amplify for you the information on child restraint devices that appeared on pages 169 and 170 of our April issue. The 15 devices listed as failing to meet the 2000-pound load requirement were sold with safety claims as follows: DEVICES WITHDISCLAIMER:

Penney's No. 0858

Sears No. 1507

Tommee Tippee WP 207

Tommee Tippee WP 205 SP

DEVICES MAKING NO SPECIFIC SAFETY CLAIM:

Auto Babe

Ward's No. 6053 "Tiny World Safety Belt"

Wizard No. 5480 "All Purpose Safety Strap. . ."

DEVICES MAKING SOME CLAIMS:

Hollywood 495 C

497 C "1000-lb. test." "Secures against sudden stops." ". . .allows for. . .with perfect safety."

Kiddie King KKB-1 "Child's Auto Safety Belt." "Protects your child against sudden stops."

Kiddie King KKB-2 "Child's Safety Harness and Belt." "Protection. . .in Autos. . ." ". . .Maximum of safety."

Safety Guard B 12 "Auto Safety Strap." "For protection, comfort, safety." "Will protect children on short stops."

Safety Guard B 112 "Child's Auto Safety Strap." "Exceeds SAE Safety Specifications." "Protection against short stop danger."

Safety Guard B 1212 "Safety Harness Strap." "Protect your child from short stops." ". . .exceeds S.A.E. Safety Specifications."

Toidey SC-3 "Auto Harness." "Keeps little explorers safe." ". . .webbing withstands over 2000 pounds pull."

Our question: Which of these devices are Type 3 restraints; and thus which of them are, according to our static tests, in violation of Standard 209?

We shall appreciate any information you can supply us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division-- Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc. Morris Kaplan

David Tallman