[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54466-54468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26157]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54467]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-84; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF70
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Restraints
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule proposes to delete one of two alternative
performance requirements for head restraints. That alternative involves
a testing procedure that is more cumbersome than the one in the other
alternative and has rarely, if ever, been used by manufacturers.
Accordingly, removing this alternative would not adversely affect the
manufacturers. Further, removal would simplify the language of the
standard. This document also proposes to amend several sections of
Standard No. 202 to reduce the administrative burdens of this standard.
This proposal would clarify the test procedures by replacing the
``rearmost portion of the head form'' with a reference to the portion
of the head form in contact with the head restraint. This proposal
would also specify that head restraints on bench-type seats are loaded
simultaneously during compliance testing. NHTSA believes that these
amendments would reduce confusion and allow manufacturers to certify
compliance with lower test costs.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Edward Jettner,
Frontal Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
NPS-12, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 366-4917, fax (202)
366-4329.
For legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.
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.''
Rescission
Currently, 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 displacement of
the head restraint 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
believes that removing this alternative will simplify the regulatory
language of the standard without affecting the vehicle manufacturers.
Amendments
The agency also identified several sections of Standard No. 202
which would be amended to reduce the administrative burdens of this
standard.
First, during agency compliance testing, questions have
occasionally arisen regarding what is the ``rearmost portion of the
head form.'' Therefore, the agency is proposing to clarify the standard
by replacing the reference to ``rearmost portion of the head form''
with a reference to the portion of the head form in contact with the
head restraint.
Second, to reduce compliance testing costs, the agency is proposing
to specify that head restraints on bench-type seats are to be loaded
simultaneously during testing. If this proposal were adopted, the
driver's and right passenger head restraint could 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. If simultaneous
loads were to cause the seat back to fail before the 200 pound load was
applied, this proposal might theoretically allow manufacturers to
install less strong head restraints. However, NHTSA has never had a
seat back fail during its compliance testing for Standard No. 202.
Because the total load would be less than seats are required to
withstand by Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, NHTSA does not believe
that testing head restraints simultaneously would result in a seat or
seat failure. Therefore, this amendment would not result in a lessening
of the safety requirements of the standard. However, manufacturers
could experience minor cost savings as a result of running one test of
both head restraints simultaneously, rather than two separate tests.
The agency also wishes to remind the public that it is in the midst
of research to determine whether, and if so, how, Standard No. 202
might be upgraded to further reduce whiplash injuries. The results of
that research will form the content of a separate notice regarding
possible amendments to this standard.
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. The agency has
determined that the economic impacts of this proposed rule are so
minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
warranted. Since the cost of testing would be on a per vehicle basis,
test savings of not more than $100 should result because of reduction
in test set-up times.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: NHTSA has also considered the impacts
of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify
that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. As explained above, NHTSA does
not anticipate a significant economic impact from this rulemaking
action on any entities, including small entities.
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 proposed rule.
[[Page 54468]]
National Environmental Policy Act: NHTSA has also analyzed this
proposed rule under the National Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it would not have a significant impact on the human
environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism): NHTSA has analyzed this
proposal in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in
E.O. 12612, and has determined that this proposed rule would not have
significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform: This proposed rule would 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.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
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 for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The 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 rules 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue 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 would be amended by removing S4.3, S5.1, and
S5.2 and by revising S4.1, S4.2, and S5, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.202 Standard No. 202; Head restraints.
* * * * *
S4.1 Except for school buses, a head restraint that complies with
S4.2 shall be provided at each outboard front designated seating
position. For school buses, a head restraint that complies with S4.2
shall be provided for the driver's seating position.
S4.2 Each head restraint, when adjusted to its fully extended
design position, shall comply with S4.2(a) through S4.2(d):
(a) When measured parallel to the torso line, the top of the head
restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating
reference point.
(b) When measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the head
restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, the lateral
width of the head restraint shall be not less than:
(1) 10 inches for head restraints installed on bench-type seats; or
(2) 6.75 inches for head restraints installed on individual seats.
(c) When tested in accordance with S5, 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(c).
(d) When tested in accordance with S5, the head restraint shall
withstand the load specified in S5(d) until one of the following
occurs:
(1) Failure of the seat or seat back; or
(2) Application of a load of 200 pounds.
S5. Demonstration procedure. Compliance with S4.2 shall be
demonstrated in accordance S5(a) through S5(d) with the head restraint
in its fully extended design position. Test loads shall be applied
simultaneously to head restraints that are installed on bench type
seats.
(a) Place a test device, having the back pan dimensions and torso
line (centerline of the head room probe in full back position) of the
three dimensional SAE J826 (May 1987) manikin, at the manufacturer's
recommended design seated position.
(b) Establish the displaced torso reference line by applying a
rearward moment of 3,300 in. lb. about the lateral axis through the
seating reference point to the seat through the test device back pan
located in S5(a).
(c) After removing the back pan, using a 6.5 inch diameter
spherical head form or a cylindrical head form having a 6.5 inch
diameter in plan view and a 6-inch height in profile view, apply a
rearward initial load 2.5 inches below the top of the head restraint
that will produce a 3,300 in. lb. moment about the lateral axis through
the seating reference point.
(d) Gradually increase the load specified in S5(c) to 200 pounds or
until the seat or seat back fails, whichever occurs first.
Issued on October 17, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-26157 Filed 10-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
