Interpretation ID: nht76-5.6

DATE: 01/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Nolan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products has been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their "safety shell" child carrier as follows: a child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.

Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, regulates certain safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.

Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for the padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A "child proof" system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.

As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires that installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.

The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standard that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.

SINCERELY,

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

December 29, 1975

Brenda Nolan

Dear Ms. Nolan:

The Consumer Affairs Division of the California Attorney General's Office has forwarded a copy of your letter concerning a children's car seat manufactured by Peterson Baby Products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate children's car seats under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. However, it is our understanding that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation now has in effect safety regulations for children's restraint systems used in motor vehicles. The NHTSA Chief Counsel has informed us that NHTSA will issue in the near future an amendment to its existing standard for children's restraint systems (FMVSS #213).

Because of NHTSA's expertise in this matter, we have forwarded your letter to them for consideration and investigation of the safety problems described in your letter.

Michael A. Brown General Counsel

CC: OFC. OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA; OFC. OF THE ATTY. GENERAL

PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE PURCHASED TWO PETERSON SAFETY SHELLS, ONE IN DECEMBER 1974, THE OTHER IN APRIL 1975. THIS LETTER DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT'S FAILURES WHICH HAVE MADE THE SHELLS ALMOST UNUSABLE, AND ASKS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION ON YOUR PART.

OUR MAJOR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE TODDLER SYSTEM, WHICH OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLIMB OUT OF SINCE SHE WAS 9 1/2 MONTHS OLD. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS SHE SHOULD BE IN IT FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR. ALSO, THE CAR SEATBELT MUST BE STRAPPED SO TIGHTLY AROUND THE GUARD OF THE TODDLER SYSTEM, THAT IT TAKES A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER TO TIGHTEN IT OR SHE SIMPLY PUSHES IT OUT OF POSITION. THIS IS A FINGER PINCHER. . . AND PROBABLY NOT VERY SAFE. OUT OF NECESSITY SHE IS NOW IN THE CHILD SYSTEM, WITH THE CHILD'S HARNESS WHICH IS MUCH TOO LARGE, AND A FAILING PAD AND ALL.

OUR SECOND COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE PADS. THE SNAPS ON BOTH PADS HAVE PULLED OUT IN VARIOUS PLACES, ALLOWING THE PADS TO MOVE AROUND, PUTTING STRESS ON THE SLITS FOR THE HARNESS SYSTEM. THIS HAS RIPPED THE SLITS. ONE PAD WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN NINE MONTHS AND THE OTHER WILL BE SHORTLY IN SIX MONTHS. ANOTHER OBSERVATION: THERE WAS SKIMPING ON THE LENGTH OF THE PAD AND THE KIND OF FABRIC USED IS IMPROPER FOR THIS KIND OF THING. ALSO, OUR IN-LAW'S NEW SHELL LASTED THREE WEEKS UNTIL THE COVERING ON ONE WING SPLIT WIDE OPEN.

BECAUSE THESE SEATS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FOUR YEARS, WE FEEL PETERSON SHOULD REPLACE THE TWO PADS ON OUR SEATS. WE LOOK FOREWARD TO A PROMPT REPLY FROM YOU ON THESE REPLACEMENTS.

OUR THIRD COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE DIRECTIONS FOR FASTENING THE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP. THEY ARE INADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS THIS STRAP IS VERY EASILY LOSSENED TO CREATE LOTS OF SLACK, SIMPLY, BY PULLING THE END OF THE STRAP. THIS WE CONSIDER VERY SERIOUS ENCLOSED ARE OUR REVISED DIRECTIONS IN WHICH YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

OUR FOURTH COMPLAINT: THE HARNESS SYSTEMS ARE DIFFICULT TO ADJUST TO DIFFERENT THICKNESSES OF OUTER CLOTHING. WHILE WE'RE UNFORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A CLIMATE WHERE IT MAY BE 80 DEGREES ONE DAY AND 35 DEGREES THE NEXT, CAN'T THESE ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE EASIER? MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS HARD TO GET THE BABY OUT OF THE INFANT SYSTEM QUICKLY IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE SHELL. ALSO, THE CLASP ON THE CHILD'S HARNESS IS A (ILLEGIBLE WORDS). SAAB. WE PREFER THE VOLKSWAGEN. ONLY WE CAN'T FIT BOTH SEATS INTO THE BACK AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP STUD FOR RIGHT REAR POSITIONING.

UNTIL TWO MONTHS AGO WE WERE RELATIVELY PLEASED WITH THE TODDLER AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. EXCEPT FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE PAD AND AWKWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE HARNESS, THE CHILD'S SYSTEM IS OK. WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT THE TODDLER SYSTEM NOR MUCH ABOUT THE INFANT SYSTEM.

OUR CHILDREN ARE NEITHER OVERLY ACTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE, YET THE PADS LASTED ONLY NINE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS RESPECTIVELY. AGAIN, WE ASK FOR REPLACEMENT PADS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WE LOOK FOREWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU AND RESOLVING THIS MATTER.

SINCERELY,

BRENDA NOLAN

COPIES TO: CHILD WORLD, CHELMSFORD, MASS; CONSUMER REPORTS, MT. VERNON, N.Y.; CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIV., ATTY. GEN.'S OFC., BOSTON, MASS.

Our directions for the side restraint strap.

Seatbelt anchor

(Graphics omitted)

CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BOSTON, MASS.

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE HAVE JUST WRITTEN A LETTER TO PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS, P.O. BOX 3974, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 91605. WE THOUGH THAT OUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CAR SEAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU. THEREFORE WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF THAT LETTER.

BRENDA NOLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Peterson Baby Products

December 5, 1975

GENTLEMEN: The Consumer Protection Unit of the Attorney General's Office has received the enclosed complaint relating to your firm. We understand that there are always two sides to a problem, and we would appreciate your prompt review of this matter.

We do not represent the complainant. However, we analyze all complaints to determine whether grounds exist for legal action under California consumer protection laws. Your response to each of the factual allegations in the complaint will help us determine whether legal action on our part is warranted.

We would appreciate receiving your response within the next thirty days. We also request that you send a copy of your response to the complainant. Please feel free to attach any documents which you think are relevant in explaining your position. Naturally in sending you this complaint, we make no assumption to the truth of the allegations.

EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General

Consumer Protection Analyst

cc: CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION