Interpretation ID: aiam4171
Esq.
Locker Greenberg & Brainin
P.C.
One Penn Plaza
New York
NY 10001;
Dear Mr. Locker: This responds to your June 4, 1986 letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong, th former Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. In that letter, you referred to the preliminary compliance test data sheet showing that the Kolcraft 'Flip N Go' booster seat failed to comply with section S5.2.4 of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). You stated that this preliminary noncompliance finding was based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of section S5.2.4. I conclude that Mr. Armstrong was acting on a correct interpretation of that section and properly applied it to the Kolcraft 'Flip N Go' booster seat.; For your information, section S5.2.4 reads as follows: >>>*Protrusion limitation*. Any portion of a rigid structural componen within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch.<<<; You asserted that S5.2.4 does not apply to the 'Flip N Go' Seat. As yo read S5.2.4, it applies only to child restraint systems that are also subject to S5.2.3. You note that the 'Flip N Go' seat is not recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds, so the requirements of S5.2.3 are not applicable to it. You then conclude that the requirements of S5.2.4 should also not be applicable to that seat.; Your assertion is, however, based upon the misplacing of the firs comma in your quotation of S5.2.4. As S5.2.4 was quoted in your letter, the comma appeared as follows 'restraint system surface, that is subject.' In fact, there is no comma in that location. One does appear earlier: 'contactable surface, or any portion.' As you see from the correct version of S5.2.4 set forth above, it applies to both--; >>>(1) any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlyin a contactable surface, *AND; (2) any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject t the requirements of S5.2.3.<<<; Since we both agree that the 'Flip N Go' seat is not subject to th requirements of S5.2.3, the question is whether all portions of its rigid structural components within or underlying a contactable surface satisfy the requirements of S5.2.4. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a 'contactable surface' as 'any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1.' The preliminary compliance test data sheet for the 'Flip N Go' seat indicates that four different surfaces on the shield and shield support arms appear to fail to comply with the requirements of S5.2.4.; The first surface listed as not appearing to comply with S5.2.4 was th horizontal upper-forward edge of the shield, which has a radius of less than 1/4 inch. Your response is that this surface is not capable of being contacted by the child's head or neck. We disagree with you. However, even if the test dummy's head and neck failed to contact this edge, the dummy's torso *would* contact that surface. The torso contact would make the edge a contactable surface under S5.2.4, which prohibits the edge from having a radius of less than 1/4 inch. Accordingly, this edge does not appear to comply with S5.2.4, regardless of whether it is contacted by a child's head, neck, or torso.; The outboard left and right vertical edges of the shield support arm appear not to comply with two requirements of S5.2.4. First, the edges have radii of less than 1/4 inch. Second, the edges protrude more than 3/8 inch above the immediately adjacent shield surface. Your response to this was that the entire shield surface is integral and must be considered as a whole. When consider in this way, you stated that the edges of the shield support arms comply with S5.2.4. We cannot agree with your interpretation.; There is no basis in Standard No. 213 for your position that 'integral shields are considered as a whole for the purposes of S5.2.4. The only question under S5.2.4 is whether a contactable surface incorporates projections or narrow edges that could subject the child occupant to pressure point loading in the event of a crash. If the contactable surface incorporates such projections or narrow edges, it does not comply with S5.2.4. Since the edges of the shield support arms on the 'Flip N Go' seat are contactable surfaces which incorporate projections and have edge radii that are prohibited by S5.2.4, the edges of the shield support arms do not appear to comply with S5.2.4.; The third surfaces noted as not appearing to comply with S5.2.4 wer the inboard vertical surfaces of the shield support arms, because those surfaces have edges with radii of less than 1/4 inch. Your response to this was to repeat your integral shield argument and to state that Standard No. 213 does not require oblique crash simulations. This latter point was in response to the following statement in the preliminary compliance test data report: 'These edges and those described in (2) above could be contacted by the occupant in oblique crashes.'; This statement is not the reason for the preliminary determination tha those edges do not comply with S5.2.4 of Standard No. 213. It was included only to point out the actual safety hazard that could be presented to occupants of the 'Flip N Go' seat in a crash. The reason for the preliminary determination is that these edges appear to be contactable surfaces within the meaning of S4, and the edges have radii of less than 1/4 inch. I apologize for any confusion the statement about oblique crashes may have caused.; The fourth surface noted as not appearing to comply with S5.2.4 was th extreme bottom horizontal surface of the shield, with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. Additionally, that surface is supported by seven smaller vertical ribs, five of which are contactable and have edge radii of less than 1/4 inch. The data sheet concluded, 'All of these edges may be contacted by the occupant's thighs or lower abdomen.'; You responded to this by repeating your integral shield argument, an stating that the requirements of S5.2.4 are applicable only to situations involving head impact protection. Accordingly, you stated that S5.2.4 was not intended to address contact with the shield by an occupant's thighs or lower abdomen.; As noted above, section S5.2.4 requires all portions of the shiel within or underlying a 'contactable surface' to have no protrusions. A contactable surface refers to portions of the restraint that may contact any part of the head or *torso*. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines the term 'torso' as 'the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the child restraint seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.' Thus, the thighs would not be considered part of the torso, but the lower abdomen would. Section S5.2.4 is intended to prevent or reduce injuries to the torso, including the lower abdomen. Thus, any edge contactable by the test dummy's lower abdomen must have a radius of at least 1/4 inch to comply with S5.2.4. Since these edges have smaller radii, they do not appear to comply with that section.; Please contact our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance if you have an further responses or comments on the preliminary noncompliance determination.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel