Interpretation ID: nht74-4.40

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated November 29, 1973, requesting our comments on your enclosed second-draft customer notification letter, on your second-draft press release, and on your proposed dealer notification letter.

Thank you for your prompt response to our previous suggestions. Your present draft conforms to most of the requirements set forth in our Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577). However, several further changes appear necessary.

First, the second sentence of the fifth paragraph states incorrectly that failure may occur only in rear impact collisions causing loads in excess of eight or nine hundred pounds. Actually, failure is more likely to occur in frontal impacts than in side or rear impacts. Failure may occur whenever the load on the belts exceeds about eight hundred pounds. Such loading can result from impacts from any angle. Frontal impacts are more likely to produce such loads because the principal restraint provided by the belts is against the relative forward motion of the child which the vehicle deceleration of a frontal impact produces. In the case of a rear impact, belt loading results from "rebound." Consequently, belt loading at a given rear impact speed will be considerably lower. Side impacts, of course, produce both direct and indirect loading.

Second, paragraph two of your draft does not quite comply with 49 CFR sections 577.4(b), 577.5, and 577.6. The first sentence of your second paragraph must read: "The Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. has determined that the car seat adapter portion of Stroll-O-Chair Model 71s manufactured before (date) does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213." Because the wording of the statement is specified precisely, we must insist that it be followed as closely as the particular facts of each case allow.

The second sentence of the paragraph appears to follow section 577.4(b) (2). However, such a determination must have some basis other than your initial compliance testing, which we understand to be the only basis for your persent statement. In our view, a section 577.4(b)(2) statement would be appropriate only if you had a firm basis for believing that some adapters are materially different from others. Passing results from your own compliance testing are not enough. Otherwise every defect notification letter would contain a section 577.4(b)(2) statement except where the manufacturer violated section 108(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, prohibiting false or misleading certification. Such cases are rare indeed compared to routine compliance test failures such as yours.

Third, the second (last) sentence of paragraph six of your draft may be misleading. We suggest adding the phrase "manufactured after (date)" after "all model # 71 car seats" to make it apparent that everyone receiving a defect notification letter has the older rivet system.

Fourth, although the injuries which could occur in the event of adapter failure are many, and are readily apparent, section 577.4(d)(2) requires a general statement of the types of possible injury. One sentence which mentioned impact injuries from contact with the dashboard and other parts of the vehicle interior and which also noted the likelihood of ejection from the vehicle would suffice if placed at the end of paragraph five of your draft.

Fifth, you should probably include a reminder or suggestion that the customer have his small child use adult safety belts during the time he does not have the adapter. Even small children who should ride in approved car seats are better off belted than unbelted. Such a warning could be included in your final paragraph. We consider it a precautionary statement under section 577.4(c)(4).

Finally, section 577.4(e)(1) requires an estimate of the time reasonably necessary to perform the labor to correct each noncompliance. Because you propose to have each adapter sent to your factory, either directly or through a dealer, it might also be helpful to estimate the total length of time the customer is likely to be without the seat adapter.

We have but two minor suggestions for the press release. First, your initial sentence should specify that the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 213. Second, you should include the date on which you made your production method change. This is especially important because the designation "model # 71" encompasses both complying and noncomplying seats. Our consumer information staff is now drafting our own complementary press release. We will contact you about a joint issuance date.

We have no objection to your distributor notification letter.