Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

16316

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Alternatively, Jewkes suggests that NHTSA amend the existing harness definition in FMVSS No. 213 so that the definition includes child restraints such as the petitioners hybrid CRS.7 The aim of this approach is to exclude the subject CRSs from the untethered test requirement on the basis that they are harnesses, as currently, under FMVSS
No. 213, harnesses are not subject to the requirement.
The petitioner claims that there is no need for hybrid CRSs to be subject to an untethered test requirement because caregivers would know to attach the tether. It did not provide data supporting this assertion. Jewkes notes its belief that, due to the untethered test requirement, child restraints must have a rigid junction between the child restraints seat bottom and the CRS seat back. The petitioner states, without providing supporting data, that CRSs with a rigid junction between the CRS
bottom and back appear to average users to function equally well with and without top-tether. As such, users do not recognize the necessity for toptether use to increase their childs safety and, thus, fail to utilize the top tether. By contrast, the need to use the top tether with the hybrid CRS is readily apparent, because the 7 FMVSS No. 213 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 restraint system does not meet this definition; it has a rigid seating structure.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:54 Mar 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

shoulder harness is not accessible without it.
As such, misuse of the car seat by omitting the top tetherthe primary reason FMVSS
No. 2013 sic requires compliance without top tether useis negligible in the case of the hybrid CRS. Because the hybrid CRS does not necessitate concern for use without toptether, it should be exempted from FMVSS
No. 213 as petitioned.

untethered test requirement serves an important safety need. Jewkes did not provide any data or rationale supporting its request. NHTSA concludes that the requested amendment would subject children to an unacceptable risk of injury in crashes and does not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.

Moreover, the petitioner asserts that its hybrid CRS is a lighter species of the five-point restraint and a remedy to several drawbacks caused by the untethered test requirement. Jewkes states that, due to the untethered test requirement, the rigid junction between a CRSs seat bottom and seat back creates bulk which can compromise child safety in several ways. The petitioner lists what it believes to be five advantages its devices have over CRSs with rigid junctions.
NHTSA addresses those views later in the section below.

b. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove the Untethered Test for Hybrid CRSs The Agency also denies the request to exclude the petitioners hybrid child restraints from the untethered test requirement. The petitioner asserts that the untethered test is unnecessary for hybrid CRSs because caregivers will know to tether the restraint. Jewkes did not provide any data supporting this proposition. Furthermore, the data that are available to NHTSA do not support that view.
Studies have shown that caregivers do not use the tether anchorage because they are not familiar with it or do not know what it is for. A 2006 study by Decina et al.8 found that 61 percent of upper tether nonusers cited their lack of knowledgenot knowing what the tethers were, that they were available in the vehicle, the importance of using them, or how to properly use themas the reason for not using them. The study
III. Discussion a. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove the Untethered Test Completely NHTSA denies the request to remove the untethered test requirement in FMVSS No. 213 as applied to all CRSs.
The untethered test requirement ensures that CRSs provide at least a minimum level of adequate protection when the tether strap is not attached. As noted above in this preamble, NCRUSS and IIHS data show that tether nonuse continues to be a problem. Thus, the
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

8 Decina, L.E. et al. Child Restraint Use Survey:
LATCH Use and Misuse. December 2006. DOT HS
810 679. Link: https crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/810679.

E:FRFM29MRP1.SGM

29MRP1

EP29MR21.007

Figure 1. Schematic drawing provided by the petitioner of a "hybrid CRS" on a vehicle seat drawing enhanced by NHTSA to improve clarity