Interpretation ID: nht80-2.5

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartman, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 17, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartman, Braun & Halper Suite 1015 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc., concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

You asked whether a "foam tray" marketed as an accessory for a child restraint by Strolee is prohibited by section S5.2.2.2 of the standard. According to your description, the tray "may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners" and is made of polyurethane foam and "does not contain any metal or solid parts." The purpose of the device is "to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides."

Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the foam tray attaches to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. If the foam tray is attached to a surface that complies with S5.2.2.2, such as a padded shield, a separate test using the foam tray alone would not be required.

You also raised a question about section S6.1.2.1.2. You explained that Strolee is considering the use of "an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child." The impact shield "would be removable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode." When the restraint is used in a rear-facing position, the child is to be restrained by a five-point belt system. You asked if the Strolee seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II in a rear-facing position.

The answer is no. Section S6.1.2.3.2 provides that each fixed or movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to the testing required by S6.1.2.1.2. Thus, if the instructions inform users that the removable shield is not to be used in a rear-facing position, then the restraint need not be tested at 20 mph in a rear-facing position. The restraint would be tested at 20 mph in the forward-facing position with the shield in place but with none of the restraint system belts fastened, unless they are an integral part of the shield.

You also asked about obtaining copies of interpretations issued by the agency. The agency's docket section maintains a file of the interpretations for each standard and can provide you with copies. The address is: Docket Section, Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

Re: Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems California Strolee, Inc. ("Strolee")

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was a pleasure for Mr. Hyde and me to meet with you and your associates concerning the above referenced car seat regulations. As you know, our firm represents Strolee and we are writing this letter to you on their behalf.

We are sending you under separate cover a letter setting forth in detail our objections to what we perceive to be the ambiguities in the standard and our comments in relation thereto. The purpose of this letter is to seek your opinion under the existing standard concerning two areas of concern to our client. They are as follows:

1) Section 5.2.2.2 provides that each forward facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or moveable surface directly forward of the dummy. Our client markets an accessory for use with its car seat which, for purposes of convenience, we would label as a "foam tray". This tray is made of polyurethane foam. It is not a part of the car seat and is sold totally separate and independent from the car seat. It may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners. It does not contain any metal or solid parts. It can be used by the parent for other purposes, but it is marketed primarily as an accessory for the car seat. The purpose of the foam tray is to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides. We believe it will keep the child occupied and thus promote the use of the seat by keeping the child happy and engaged in his own activities. It should prevent boredom on long trips in a car seat.

The foam tray is patented and our client is the licensee of the patent owner. We desire to have your interpretation as to whether our client can continue to market this tray. In the opinion of our client, it does not present a safety hazard and does not present any barrier as to whether or not a parent affixes the harness straps that are a part of the car seat.

2) Section 6.1.2 provides for the dynamic test procedure. Section 6.1.2.1.2 provides what is called "Test Configuration II", which is the test required at twenty miles per hour without the tether strap affixed and without the restraining straps of the system affixed to the dummy. One of the systems under consideration by our client would be the use of an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child. It is contemplated that the impact shield would be removeable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode. If such is the case, then the five point harness, that is an integral part of the Strolee car seat, would be used as the restraining system. The car seat would be affixed to the car in the usual manner. Under these circumstances, your opinion is requested as to whether the Strolee car seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II. In this connection, your attention is respectively directed to the difference between the Strolee restraint system and the system employed by the Bobby-Mac car seat. With the Bobby-Mac car seat, when the removeable shield is taken off of the car seat, the sole restraining device that affixes the car seat to the automobile does not function properly. Such a condition does not exist in the Strolee seat. The attachment of the automobile seat belt to the car seat is totally independent of the system designed to hold the child in the car seat.

The foregoing request for your interpretation is not to be deemed our acquiesence in the legal propriety of the regulations. While our client does not contest your right to regulate the juvenile car seat, it has strong objections to the regulations themselves and, as appears from my other letter, the apparent discriminatory manner in which these regulations may be enforced.

May we please hear from you at your earliest opportunity?

One final point, in our meeting, you indicated that you will be issuing a number of interpretive opinions in response to manufacturers' inquiries of your department. We would appreciate receiving written copies of all interpretive opinions that are published by your department.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc