Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules One of the dynamic performance requirements for forward-facing CRSs tested in the untethered condition is an 813 mm 32 inch limit on head excursion. Head excursion refers to the distance the test dummys head moves forward during the dynamic test S5.1.3.1a1.3 The limit on head excursion reduces the likelihood of a child heads striking harmful objects or surfaces in a crash. The CRSs must also meet other dynamic performance requirements without use of a tether, including limits on the head and chest acceleration of the test dummies during the sled test S5.1.2.1. This document refers to the requirement that CRSs meet FMVSS No. 213 without using the tether as the untethered test requirement.
The purpose of the untethered test requirement is to ensure that CRSs provide at least a minimum level of adequate protection when the tether strap is not attached. When a tether strap is properly attached, a forwardfacing child restraint equipped with a tether strap will generally offer the best protection for child occupants.
However, survey results have continuously shown that tether straps are not widely used by caregivers to secure CRSs in vehicles. Recent studies from NHTSAs National Child Restraint supplementary features that must be attached by the consumer separately from the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system or seat belt to install the CRS to the vehicle seat.
3 In addition, S5.1.3.1a1 also requires CRSs to provide enhanced head protection by way of a 720
mm 28 inch head excursion limit. This requirement may be met through attachment of a tether strap.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:54 Mar 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

Use Special Study NCRUSS 4 and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety IIHS 5 show that tether use is low in the field, as it has been since the initial implementation of FMVSS No. 213.
NCRUSS found that the overall tether use in forward-facing CRSs with internal harnesses was 42 percent.
Tether use was 71 percent when the CRS was attached with the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system and 31 percent when the CRS was attached with seat belts.
IIHS researchers analyzed data from 479
vehicle observations and found that the top tether was used only 56 percent of the time.
To address this problem, FMVSS No.
213 requires forward-facing CRSs, with certain limited exceptions, to meet the standards minimum performance requirements without attachment of a tether. In that way, children will be afforded at least a minimum level of adequate occupant protection even if 4 National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811 679, https crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/
Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142. NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally-representative survey that involves both an inspection of the child passengers restraint system by a certified child passenger safety technician and a detailed interview of the driver.
Between June and August 2011, the survey collected information on drivers and child passengers ages 08 years.
5 Eichelberger, A. H., Decina, L.E., Jermakian, J.
S., McCartt, A. T., Use of top tether with forward facing child restraints: Observations and driver interviews, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, April 2013. IIHS surveyed collected data at roughly 50 suburban sites near Fredericksburg, VA., Philadelphia, PA, Seattle, WA, and Washington, DC
Shopping centers, recreation facilities, child-care centers, car-seat checkpoints and health-care facilities were among the locations.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

16315

the caregiver does not attach the tether.
That untethered test requirement applies to the restraint that Jewkes seeks to develop.
II. Petition for Rulemaking Jewkes submitted a petition for rulemaking, dated February 21, 2017, requesting NHTSA to either: a Remove the untethered test requirement; or b classify a child restraint system the petitioner would like to develop as a new type of CRS hybrid CRS, and exclude these restraints from the standards untethered test requirement.
The petitioner states that the untethered test requirement automatically disqualifies use of so-called hybrid
child restraints. NHTSA understands the statement to mean that the child restraints cannot meet the untethered test requirement of FMVSS No. 213.
Jewkes describes a hybrid CRS as a CRS with a flexible connection between car-seat bottom and back . . . with a five-point harness. Jewkes provided a schematic drawing of a type of hybrid CRS, which NHTSA has reproduced in Figure 1 below.6 The petitioner suggests FMVSS No. 213 define a hybrid CRS as an add-on forward facing CRS with five-point harness using a combination of flexible materials connecting a rigid seat-bottom to a seat-back structure.
6 To view a copy of the petition, see https
www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-20170007-0004. The schematic drawing in the petition was not clear, so NHTSA enhanced the outlines so the schematic could be published in this document.
It appears the schematic is showing a hybrid CRS
positioned on a vehicle seat with a head restraint.

E:FRFM29MRP1.SGM

29MRP1