Interpretation ID: nht91-2.18

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Liam J. Moran -- Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran

TO: Steven Kratzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.; Our File No. : 3571

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Liam J. Moran (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

This letter will serve to confirm our telephone conversation today and constitute a request for a formal interpretation of Paragraph S5.6.3 of FMVSS 213. My inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office is whether the manufacturer of a child restraint system is deemed in compliance with Paragraph S5.6.3 which requires that instructions affixed to the child restraint system "shall explain the primary consequences of noting (sec) following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system" if the manufacturer affixes the statement appearing in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) which states as follows:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located --.

As I explained to you in our telephone conversation, this firm represents Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. in a products liability action. The plaintiff alleges that even though Evenflo's child restraint system had the warning stipulated in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) of FMVSS 213 affixed to it, Evenflo violated Paragraph S5.6.3 of the regulation by failing to include additional language explaining the "primary consequences of not following the warnings."

I request that the issuance of the Chief Counsel's interpretation be undertaken on an expedited basis given the time constraints of the pending litigation.

Should you have any questions concerning our inquiry, please do not hesitate to call.