[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27023-27025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13527]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-84; Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AF70
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Restraints
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies the test procedures in Standard No.
202, ``Head Restraints,'' by replacing the phrase ``rearmost portion of
the head form'' with a reference to the portion of the head form in
contact with the head restraint. The proposal on which this rule is
based contained two other proposed amendments to the standard; this
document terminates rulemaking on those proposals.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
July 15, 1996.
PETITION DATES: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received by
NHTSA no later than July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590:
For non-legal issues: Clarke Harper, Frontal Crash Protection
Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-12, telephone (202)
366-4916, fax (202) 366-4329, electronic mail
``[email protected]''.
For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20,
telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the March 4, 1994 directive,
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,'' from the President to the heads
of departments and agencies, NHTSA has undertaken a review of all its
regulations and directives. During the course of this review, the
agency identified several requirements and regulations that are
potential candidates for amendment or rescission. Some of these
provisions were found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202,
``Head Restraints.''
On October 24, 1995, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to delete one of two alternative
performance requirements for head restraints. The NPRM also proposed to
clarify the test procedures by replacing the phrase ``rearmost portion
of the head form'' with a reference to the portion of the head form in
contact with the head restraint. Last, the NPRM proposed to specify
that head restraints on bench-type seats are loaded simultaneously
during compliance testing.
The agency received eight comments in response to this NPRM. As
explained below, after reviewing these comments the agency has decided
to amend Standard No. 202 to replace the phrase ``rearmost portion of
the head form'' with a reference to the portion of the head form in
contact with the head restraint. However, the agency is terminating
rulemaking on the other proposed amendments.
[[Page 27024]]
Dynamic Test Requirement
Standard No. 202 allows manufacturers a choice of two performance
requirements which provide equivalent levels of safety. One
alternative, found in S4.3(b) and S5.2, requires the head restraint to
have minimum dimensions and to not displace more than 4 inches when a
3,300 inch pound moment is applied to the head restraint. The other
alternative, found in S4.3(a) and S5.1, limits rearward angular
displacement of the dummy head to less than 45 degrees during a forward
acceleration of at least 8g applied to the seat supporting structure.
The second alternative involves a testing procedure that is more
cumbersome than the first alternative and subsequently has rarely, if
ever, been used. Because this alternative has rarely been used, NHTSA
proposed to remove this alternative to simplify the regulatory language
of the standard.
AAMA and Volkswagen supported this proposal; however, other
commenters did not agree. Some commenters stated that Standard No. 202
should be amended by strengthening the dynamic test rather than
removing it. Other commenters stated that manufacturers should be
allowed this alternate test, and that the dynamic test more closely
depicted the real world.
Atwood Mobile Products and the Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association stated that removal of the dynamic test could stifle future
technological innovation in the area of deployable crash protections
systems for head restraints. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
agreed, stating that development of such systems would be impeded by a
standard that only specifies geometric requirements.
Based on these comments, NHTSA has decided to terminate rulemaking
on the proposal to rescind the dynamic test alternative in Standard No.
202. NHTSA is concerned that removal of this alternative could stifle
technological improvements in this area. In addition, it was not the
intention of the proposal to restrict the choice of options available
to manufacturers.
``Rearmost Portion of the Head Form''
Paragraph S4.3(b)(3) of Standard No. 202 states that a head
restraint installed under option (b) of the standard must limit the
rearward displacement of ``the rearmost portion'' of the head form used
to apply a test load to the restraint. During agency compliance
testing, questions have occasionally arisen regarding what is meant by
the phrase ``rearmost portion of the head form'' in S4.3(b)(3).
Therefore, the agency proposed to clarify the standard by replacing the
reference to the phrase ``rearmost portion of the head form'' with a
reference to the portion of the head form in contact with the head
restraint.
Three commenters addressed this issue. Two supported the proposal
and only one commenter (Liability Research Group (LRG)) objected to it.
LRG believed that the proposed change would allow head form contact
below the level of the mid-line of the head form and lead to poor head
restraint designs. LRG provided no explanation of how the wording
change would be detrimental to safety.
The wording change merely clarifies the location on the head form
which is subject to the requirement. Therefore, the change will have no
effect on safety and will not allow designs not already allowed by the
standard. Therefore, NHTSA is adopting the proposed amendment.
Test Consolidation for Bench Seats
To reduce compliance testing costs, the agency proposed to specify
that head restraints on bench-type seats would be loaded simultaneously
during testing. On front bench seats, this proposal would have required
the driver's and right passenger's head restraints to be tested in a
single test instead of in two separate tests. Under the current test
procedure, a load that will produce a 3,300 inch pound moment is
applied to the head restraint. That load is then increased until either
a 200 pound load is applied or the seat back fails. NHTSA tentatively
concluded that manufacturers could experience minor cost savings as a
result of running one test of both head restraints simultaneously,
rather than two separate tests.
In the NPRM, the agency recognized that the proposal might
theoretically allow manufacturers to install less strong head
restraints. If simultaneous loads were to cause the seat back to fail
before the 200 pound load were applied, the test would be considered
incomplete, rather than a failure. The agency would not have been able
to fully evaluate compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 202.
However, NHTSA did not believe that testing head restraints
simultaneously would result in a seat back failure. This is because
NHTSA has never had a seat back fail during its compliance testing for
Standard No. 202, and because the total load would be less than seats
are required to withstand under Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.
Therefore, the agency did not expect this proposal to result in a
lessening of the safety requirements of the standard.
No commenter supported this proposal. Commenters expressed concern
that the proposal could allow manufacturers to install weaker seats
rather than strong head restraints. The commenters stated that there
was no data to support the agency's belief that the proposal would not
result in a reduction in safety.
Commenters also stated that the savings to manufacturers would not
result. Commenters stated that the test setup would not be noticeably
different for a test of two head restraints in comparison to two single
tests. Commenters also stated that manufacturers would incur initial
costs to upgrade laboratory equipment to conduct simultaneous tests.
Based on these comments, NHTSA is terminating rulemaking on this
proposal. The intent of the proposal was to (a) reduce compliance test
costs (b) without a reduction in safety. Commenters provided
information that the first of these goals was not likely to be met. In
addition, commenters raised doubts that the second goal would be met
also.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rule merely
clarifies a phrase in the test procedure, and does not change the
regulatory requirements of the standard. Therefore, there should be no
economic impact from this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As explained above, the agency expects no economic impact
from this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this final rule.
[[Page 27025]]
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.202 is amended by revising section S4.3(b)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 571.202 Standard No. 202; Head restraints.
* * * * *
S4.3
* * * * *
(b)
* * * * *
(3) When tested in accordance with S5.2, any portion of the head
form in contact with the head restraint shall not be displaced to more
than 4 inches perpendicularly rearward of the displaced extended torso
reference line during the application of the load specified in S5.2(c);
and
* * * * *
Issued on May 22, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13527 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P