[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