Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules did not find that consumers were forgoing tether use because they believed that CRSs with rigid junctions appear . . . to function equally well with and without toptether, as Jewkes asserts.
Similarly, a 2013 study by IIHS 9
showed that the top reasons for not using the tether were:
22% did not know it was there, 15% did not know how to use, 13% in a hurry/not enough time to use it, 10% did not know where to attach the tether, 9% did not think it was important or needed, 9% did not know they had tether anchors in their vehicle and, 5% had no anchor for the seating position.
None of the reasons listed above for not using the tether specifically include a belief that the CRS, installed with no tether, has comparable performance to a tethered CRS.
The petitioner also claims that the need to use the tether with the hybrid CRS is readily apparent, because the shoulder harness is not accessible without it. The petitioner did not provide any data to support this assertion. Further, from the sketch provided by Jewkes in its petition and from the hybrid CRS definition it suggests, NHTSA cannot conclude that it is readily apparent that the tether must be used. Nothing in the sketch or the definition would prevent a user from accessing the shoulder harness of a hybrid CRS if the tether were not used. Given the findings of the Decina and IIHS studies which showed a substantial degree of unfamiliarity and unawareness on the part of consumers with tethers, NHTSA does not believe it should be assumed that consumers will automatically know or make the effort to attach the tether of a hybrid CRS.
The consequences of a caregivers not attaching the tether on a hybrid CRS can be severe. For example, a child in an untethered hybrid CRS would experience excessive head excursion and a high risk of head injury due to impacts with structures or objects in front of the seat.10 Data from the National Automotive Sampling SystemCrashworthiness Data System 9 Eichelberger A.H., et al. Use of top tethers with forward-facing child restraints: observations and driver interviews. Link to public presentation http www.iihs.org/media/85044cce-4c80-4818b1d5-75a695f6924d/R3iBdw/Presentations/
Eichelberger_tethers_Lifesavers.pdf.
10 The petitioner provided no information on how head and chest accelerations on the child could be affected if the hybrid CRS were untethered in a crash.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:54 Mar 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

NASSCDS 11 for the years 19952009
show that 39 percent of Abbreviated Injury Scale AIS 2+ 12 injuries to restrained children in frontal crashes are to the head and face, with 59 percent of these injuries due to contact with the seat and back support. In a study of 28
cases of children ages 0 to 15 who sustained AIS 2+ head or face injuries in a frontal crash, Arbogast et al. 2012
found that the front row seat back and the B-pillar were the most commonly contacted components.13 The petitioner provided no data showing a lack of a safety need for the untethered test for children in hybrid CRSs. The requested amendment does not meet the need for motor vehicle safety and is denied.
c. The Requested Amendments Possible Adverse Effect on Child Occupant Protection The petitioner asserts that children are safer in a hybrid CRS compared to CRSs with a rigid junction. NHTSA
understands from the petition that CRSs with a rigid junction consist of a rigid seat bottom and rigid seat back, with a rigid side structure. Although the petitioner did not specify the ages of the children for whom its product is intended, NHTSA gathers from the petition that hybrid CRSs would be for children weighing less than 30 or 40
pounds, who now use what is commonly known as a car safety seat rather than a booster seat. For simplicity, hereinafter the agency will use car safety seat in referring to the CRSs that Jewkes describes as having a rigid junction between seat-bottom and seat back. These car safety seats with a rigid junction between the seatbottom and seat back have an internal harness to restrain the child and are different from high back booster seats, which do not have internal harnesses.
The petitioner provided no data supporting its argument that children will be safer in a hybrid CRS than in a car safety seat. To the contrary, NHTSA
believes children are afforded greater protections in a car safety seat because FMVSS No. 213 requires car safety seats to provide adequate occupant protection limiting a childs head excursion, and head and chest accelerations even when the tether is not used. With tether 11 In 2016, NASSCDS was replaced with the Crash Investigation Sampling System CISS.
12 The Abbreviated Injury Scale is a 6-point ranking system used for ranking the severity of injuries. AIS2+ injuries are injuries of severity level 2 moderate, 3 serious, 4 severe, and 5 critical according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale.
www.aaam.org.
13 Arbogast, K.B., S. Wozniak, Locey, C.M., Maltese, M.R., and Zonfrillo, M.R. 2012. Head impact contact points for restrained child occupants. Traffic Injury Prevention, 132:17281.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

16317

use rates as low as they are e.g., NCRUSS, supra, found that the overall tether use was only 42 percent, NHTSA
believes that a large portion of hybrid CRSs may similarly be used untethered.
While petitioner asserts that hybrid CRS
would not face the same type of untethered use, it does not support this assertion with data, and the risks presented by any potential misuse are high. The untethered test requirement ensures that a childs head would be reasonably protected against head impacts in an untethered car safety seat.
That same childs head would be almost totally unprotected in an untethered hybrid CRS; the restraint would have no structure to keep the childs torso from rotating forward.
Another reason children would be more protected in a car safety seat than in hybrid CRSs is that car safety seats have a padded back and padded side structure that protect the head and torso of a restrained child in side crashes.
Impacts to the side of a vehicle rank almost equal to frontal crashes as a source of occupant fatalities and serious injuries to children ages 0 to 12. In response to a safety need to improve side impact protection and pursuant to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act MAP21, NHTSA has proposed side impact protection requirements for CRSs manufactured for children weighing up to 18 kilograms 40 pounds, and is in the process of finalizing these requirements.14
NHTSA found in conducting its research for the side impact rulemaking that the padded side structure wings on current car safety seats appear to be soundly effective in providing protection in side impacts. Hybrid CRSs have no side structure and padding. The petitioner provided no information on the performance of its hybrid CRS in side impacts, or discussed the proposed side impact protection requirements. In the absence of these data and information, NHTSA denies the petition.
d. The Absence of Safety Advantages As discussed in this section, NHTSA
disagrees with the petitioners assertions 14 Section 31501a of MAP21 states that the Secretary of Transportation authority delegated to NHTSA shall issue a final rule amending FMVSS
No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes. NHTSA published an NPRM on January 28, 2014, proposing to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms 40
pounds 79 FR 4570, Docket No. NHTSA2014
0012. See Fall 2020 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, https www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/eAgendaMain, and search for Regulation Identifier Number 2127AK95.

E:FRFM29MRP1.SGM

29MRP1