[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 245 (Thursday, December 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66992-66993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32032]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket 96-22; Notice 1]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Restraints

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comment; technical report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments about a NHTSA Technical Report 
titled, ``Head Restraints--Identification of Issues Relevant to 
Regulation, Design, and Effectiveness.'' The report discusses Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, and its 
history, previous evaluations of Standard No. 202 and head restraint 
effectiveness, biomechanics of neck injury and related research, 
current whiplash rates, occupant/head restraint positioning, insurance 
industry evaluation, European standards, and future designs. The report 
also identifies questions which, if answered may lead to improvement in 
head restraint effectiveness through modifying Standard No. 202. These 
questions are repeated in this document. The agency invites the public 
to comment on the report; answer the questions listed in this notice; 
and make any other comments relevant to the regulation, design and 
effectiveness of head restraints.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than March 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington DC 20590. [Docket hours, 
9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Molino, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11, NHTSA, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 (Phone: 202-366-2264; Fax: 
202-366-4329; E-mail: [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since January 1, 1969 passenger cars have been required by Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202 to have head restraints in the 
front outboard seating positions. Head restraints must either (a) be at 
least 27.5 inches above the seating reference point in their highest 
position and not deflect more than 4 inches under a 120 pound load, or 
(b) limit the relative angle of the head and torso of a 95th percentile 
dummy to not exceed 45 degrees when exposed to an 8 g acceleration. 
Standard No. 202 was extended to light trucks and vans under 10,000 
pounds on September 1, 1991.
    In 1982, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
reported the effectiveness of integral and adjustable restraints at 
reducing neck injuries in rear impacts was 17 and 10 percent, 
respectively. The difference was due to integral restraints being 
higher with respect to the occupant's head than adjustable restraints, 
which are normally left down. The agency concluded that head restraints 
were a cost effective safety device.
    In 1995, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 
evaluated the head restraints of 164 vehicles based on

[[Page 66993]]

their position relative to the H-point. Scores were reduced for 
adjustable restraints under the assumption that they typically are not 
adjusted properly. Eight percent of restraints were given an acceptable 
or better rating. Twenty-one percent were rated marginal and 71 percent 
were rated as poor.

NHTSA Report

    The current NHTSA report attempts to identify and explore issues 
relevant to the regulation, design, and effectiveness of head 
restraints. The report discusses Standard No. 202's history, previous 
evaluations of the Standard and head restraint effectiveness, 
biomechanics of neck injury and related research, current whiplash 
rates, occupant/head restraint positioning, insurance industry 
evaluation, European standards, and future designs.
    The agency hopes the report will generate a dialogue about head 
restraints. The information gained from this dialogue may be used to 
determine if Standard No. 202 needs to be modified, and if so, in what 
way.
    NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report and invites 
the reviewers to submit comments about the data and information 
contained therein. Reviewers are also encouraged to submit information 
to supplement the report and other comments relevant to the regulation, 
design and effectiveness of head restraints. To aid the agency in 
acquiring the information it needs from its partners, NHTSA is 
including a list of questions. For ease of reference, the questions are 
numbered consecutively. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific 
responses for each question for which they may have information or 
views. In addition, to facilitate tabulation of the written comments, 
please identify the number of each question to which you are 
responding. NHTSA requests the commenters provide as specific a 
rationale as possible for any position they are taking, including an 
analysis of safety consequences.
    1. Are existing head restraints sufficient in preventing neck 
injuries in rear impacts? How can head restraints and seating systems 
be improved to reduce neck injuries? What means should be used to 
measure improvements?
    2. Is Standard No. 202's height requirement of at least 27.5 inches 
sufficient? Should there be a requirement for the horizontal distance 
between the head and head restraint? Should adjustable head restraints 
have to lock in position?
    3. If the Standard No. 202 height requirement is changed, should 
the performance requirement for the alternate 8 g dynamic test 
procedure be changed to maintain equivalence between the compliance 
options? Is a dynamic test procedure a necessity for active head 
restraints? Is the current knowledge base in neck injury criteria 
sufficient to extend the performance requirements of the dynamic 
procedure? Would changes to the Hybrid III neck have to be made?
    4. In the past the agency has received comments opposing higher 
restraint height requirements due to the potential decrease of occupant 
visibility. Can a solution be reached which considers visibility and 
injury prevention?
    5. The European analogue to Standard No. 202 is Economic Commission 
for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 25. By the year 2000, this regulation 
will require front outboard seating positions to have a head restraint 
that can achieve a height of 31.5 inches above the H-point (This is 
four inches above the height required in Standard No. 202). The minimum 
ECE height at all seating positions will be 29.5 inches above the H-
point. Should the agency pattern Standard No. 202 after the ECE 
requirements?
    6. Would an upgrade of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, affect 
requirements for head restraints? Should any change in Standard No. 202 
be synchronized/integrated with changes in Standard 207?
    7. In section 4.1 of the current report, NHTSA estimates the cost 
of whiplash injury to be approximately $4.5 billion annually, in 1995 
dollars. Is this estimate accurate based on the assumptions made? What 
is the best way to reduce this cost? What specific changes to Standard 
202 or any other Standard will reduce this cost. What would be the cost 
of these changes? What would be the resulting benefits?

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the technical 
report. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be available for examination in the 
docket at the above address both before and after that date. NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in the 
docket after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested 
persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on December 11, 1996.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-32032 Filed 12-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P