Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules Given what is known, NHTSA cannot agree with the petitioners view that hybrid CRSs would prevent premature graduation into a booster or belt system.
5. The petitioner states that people with multiple CRS users would be able to place up to three hybrid CRSs sideby-side, such that compromising the childs safety can be avoided by avoiding premature graduation to a booster seat or to the adult belt system.
NHTSAs Response: The petitioner did not provide any information supporting its view. Fitting three CRSs side-by-side does not offset the concern that hybrid CRSs provide a reduced degree of occupant protection than car safety seats. In addition, NCRUSS 21
data show that few consumers are faced with this issue. The NCRUSS data show that only 1.4 percent of vehicles had CRSs adjacently installed. Specifically, NCRUSS found that of the 4,132
vehicles with children 9 years old or younger in the second row, 329 vehicles 8 percent had two children in car seats in the second rowof these, 293
vehicles 7 percent had the two children in the outboard seating positions and 36 vehicles 0.9 percent had the two children in adjacent seating positions, one in an outboard seating position and one in the center seating position. Twenty vehicles 0.5 percent of the 4,132 vehicles had three children seated in a CRS in the second rowof these, 8 vehicles 0.2 percent had three children in car safety seats, 1 vehicle 0.025 percent had 2 car safety seats and a booster seat and 11 vehicles 0.26
percent had 2 booster seats and 1 car safety seat.
e. Denial of Request To Consider Hybrid CRSs as Harnesses Products meeting the definition of a child restraint system must meet the 21 National Child Restraint Use Special Study, supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:54 Mar 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

requirements of FMVSS No. 213. In some instances, sub-groups of child restraints e.g., car beds, booster seats, harnesses are subject to specialized requirements or are excluded from a requirement. The standard currently does not subject harnesses to the untethered test requirement S5.1.3.1a1. Harnesses have also been excluded from NHTSAs proposal establishing side impact protection requirements for children in child restraints.22
S4 defines a harness as a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure for the child. The petitioners hybrid CRS does not meet the current harness definition as it has a rigid seating structure.23
Jewkes suggests amending the definition along the lines of the following: An add-on forward facing CRS with five-point harness using a combination of flexible materials connecting a rigid seat-bottom to a seatback structure. The effect of the suggested wording would be to exclude the petitioners hybrid CRS from the untethered test requirement and the proposed side impact protection requirement.
NHTSA is denying the request.
NHTSA considers harnesses to be a niche product that is not widely used in private vehicles.24 NHTSAs Car Seat 22 79

FR 4570; January 28, 2014, supra.
23 See also September 21, 2016, letter to Mr.
Charles Vits, CRS with a booster seating structure is not a harness, https isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14001678%20IMMI%20STAR%20crs.htm.
24 NHTSA is aware of a niche market for harnesses for use on large school buses to restrain preschoolers, children needing help sitting upright, and children needing to be physically restrained because of physical or behavioral needs. See 79 FR
at 4576 harnesses excluded from side impact proposal; 69 FR 10928, March 9, 2004 seat-

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

16319

Recommendations, supra, do not mention harnesses at all in guiding consumers on how best to restrain children in motor vehicles. Because FMVSS No. 213 does not apply the same safety requirements to harnesses that it does to car safety seats, children are generally not as protected in harnesses in the general motor vehicle population as they are in car safety seats. NHTSA believes that a hybrid CRS with the rigid seating structure would not look as different from forward-facing car safety seats as a harness does. The Agency is concerned that consumers might purchase hybrid CRSs thinking that they afford the same protection as a traditional car safety seat, which is not the case. NHTSA
declines to expand the harness definition to allow market entrance of a kind of CRS that does not provide equivalent crash protection to a car safety seat. The suggested amendment would provide caregivers a false sense of security about the level of crash protection provided their children.25
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, NHTSA hereby denies Jewkes February 21, 2017 petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
FR Doc. 202106223 Filed 32621; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 491059P

mounted harnesses permitted for school bus seats.
In the school bus environment, there is assurance that harnesses will be correctly used, as school bus drivers and monitors receive training to ensure harnesses are properly attached to the school bus seat and that passengers are all properly restrained.
25 Additionally, expanding the definition to allow entry into the general marketplace of a CRS that does not improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes MAP21 section 31501a would not be consistent with Congresss intent in enacting section 31501.

E:FRFM29MRP1.SGM

29MRP1